A mechanical engineer told me Science isn't useful?

[drankin]

You know what they call the person that graduates bottom of his Engineering class don't you?

They call that person an Engineer.

That's the joke anyway. The same applies to doctors.

 

[elect_eng]

the "big picture" is the project, and Science and other aspects are only small details or parts to the whole.

This is often true. The science underlies everything and is critically important, but it is only one aspect of an engineering project. Funding, meeting cost estimates and budgets, meeting schedules and timelines, design issues, meeting specifications, testing, safety etc are all important too.

He said physics ignores very important details when he works on his projects, such as "friction", etc.

Physics generally tries not to ignore anything important, but some topics in physics can be limited for some applications. For example I took a classical mechanics class in the physics department, it used the Lagrange formulation and completely ignored friction. This class is critically important to understand higher level physics, but is almost useless to a mechanical engineer doing real world problems. I took dynamics in the ME department and friction was considered critical to any calculation.

He said if you get lost in the details like physics you'll miss the forest from the trees.

This can sometimes happen in engineering. An approximation that is simple and gets you in the 1-10 percent regime is more useful than a complex theory that gets you to 0.00001 percent and takes years to calculate on a computer.

He said, "We'll leave theories and hypotheses to the physicists. I'm a no nonsense type of guy who likes to be practical.

So, he doesn't care about general relativity, but certainly finds Newton's Laws useful. It's hard to understand his point of view from a few statements taken out of context.

If something's not useful and is 'theories', I don't care."

Well, he only cares about getting the answers. I don't agree with this approach, but I often see it among some engineers. They worry about missing the forest for the trees, but they miss that the forest is part of a continent, which is part of the earth, which is part of the solar system, which is part of a galaxy, which is part of a universe. I find that very sad.

 

[physicsdude30]

So, he doesn't care about general relativity, but certainly finds Newton's Laws useful. It's hard to understand his point of view from a few statements taken out of context.

Well, he only cares about getting the answers. I don't agree with this approach, but I often see it among some engineers. They worry about missing the forest for the trees, but they miss that the forest is part of a continent, which is part of the earth, which is part of the solar system, which is part of a galaxy, which is part of a universe. I find that very sad.

It's interesting, when he said he doesn't find Science all that interesting or useful, he said one exception was he found special relativity interesting in school.

Something I didn't include, he's actually a relative. The other day I was watching TV with him and some others. The character was a scientist who was acting very excited because he wanted to make some scientific discoveries. My relative started laughing and said, "What a nerd!"

My relative would also make fun of me when I was younger because I've always been interested in Science.

 

[physicsdude30]

One way I was thinking of this "Big Picture vs. Details Thinker" is an analogy. Isaac Newton was a big picture thinker. He saw an apple fall from a tree. Everyone else around him would think about the here and now detail, "The apple fell from the tree." Newton instead saw something more universal, gravitation, a big broad picture. Now let's say I'm a head coach in a NBA Finals game. The big picture is the game. The laws of physics are details, even if more universal. The economics are more universal, even if more universal. The same for mitochondria and biology. If you focus on one of these you loose sight of the big picture. Then the big picture vs. details again gets reverse when you look at the perspective of an economist or biologist, they think the basketball game is a here and now detail.

Or someone hears a geologist on the news say how plate tectonics will be in 200 million years from now. Most viewers will probably think of these as details, while their families and jobs are the big picture. However, from the same type of deal most now would say Galileo was a big picture thinker while those who opposed him were looking at here and now details. However, from their perspective they probably thought whether the Sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa was a detail they didn't care about, and that their families/harvest time was the big picture.

Just pondering things here. Anyway, I'm just curious how you defend yourself against people who say you're a details rather than big picture thinker because you're very interested in Science?

 

[Dembadon]

... My relative started laughing and said, "What a nerd!"

My relative would also make fun of me when I was younger because I've always been interested in Science.

I'm sorry, but your relative sounds like a pompous jerk with a falsely elevated self-image. Next time he makes fun of you, tell him to grow up.

 

[Dembadon]

... Just pondering things here. Anyway, I'm just curious how you defend yourself against people who say you're a details rather than big picture thinker because you're very interested in Science?

I doubt the "big pictures" to which he is referring are anywhere near the size of a galactic cluster.

Honestly, quit spending time with him if/when you can. If all he is going to do is insult your passion, deny him the privilege of your friendship. That can be hard with family, but doable nonetheless. Come hang with us!

 

[ThomasEdison]

I can't help but think there are mechanics who hold mechanical engineers in similar distain as this guy does Scientists.

 

[turbo]

I can't believe this thread is still running. It's like an MBA has said that basic accounting isn't useful though s/he may need a lot of those accounting stats to craft a new strategy for their company. Fundamental sciences and maths inform the people that use them (engineers) and guide their decisions. For an engineer to baldly deny that is a bit hard to swallow. (Though I have known some engineers that were heavy glad-handers, and used people on their research projects to make them look lots smarter than they were.)

 

[rootX]

Why people are making conclusions about a third person who is not present here to defend himself? OP might be taking his words out of context.

xkcd..

 

[physicsdude30]

Who people are making conclusions about a third person who is not present here to defend himself? OP might be taking his words out of context.

xkcd..

Dude, that's what he told me!

I'm not saying that I look down on him for that, I'm just curious how you defend yourself with people who say that.

Another example, I've been reading scientific peer-review journals for fun ever since high school. I meet a person who says she's working on a project with a researcher and the researcher told her to forget what's in the science research methodology books because that's not how it works in the real world. However, I felt like saying to her that we need to put it into context, the big picture of the project that researcher is working on may not use many concepts from textbooks of methods of research, however there's another big picture involved. When I look at scientific peer-review journals I keep on seeing over and over again different vocabulary words of concepts from these research methods textbooks, so as a general pattern researchers do use these concepts, even if you have to adapt to the "here and now big picture", if that makes sense? Looking at general universal patterns can also help you think outside of the box past just the "here and now details" (notice how big picture vs. details gets swapped around just by changing "context of the situation"). Who's more of a big picture thinker, and more of the details thinker? It looks arbitrary to me, but I don't think I should be forgetting what I know about Science because this mechanical engineer relative who likes sports a lot more thinks Science is just details.

Does that make sense where I'm getting at?

 

[rootX]

Dude, that's what he told me!

I'm not saying that I look down on him for that, I'm just curious how you defend yourself with people who say that.

Another example, I've been reading scientific peer-review journals for fun ever since high school. I meet a person who says she's working on a project with a researcher and the researcher told her to forget what's in the science research methodology books because that's not how it works in the real world. However, I felt like saying to her that we need to put it into context, the big picture of the project that researcher is working on may not use many concepts from textbooks of methods of research, however there's another big picture involved. When I look at scientific peer-review journals I keep on seeing over and over again different vocabulary words of concepts from these research methods textbooks, so as a general pattern researchers do use these concepts, even if you have to adapt to the "here and now big picture", if that makes sense? Looking at general universal patterns can also help you think outside of the box past just the "here and now details" (notice how big picture vs. details gets swapped around just by changing "context of the situation"). Who's more of a big picture thinker, and more of the details thinker? It looks arbitrary to me, but I don't think I should be forgetting what I know about Science because this mechanical engineer relative who likes sports a lot more thinks Science is just details.

Does that make sense where I'm getting at?

It is just inappropriate to make judgments about a person behind his/her back IMO.

 

[physicsdude30]

It is just inappropriate to make judgments about a person behind his/her back IMO.

I'm sorry.

So how would you do it differently in finding out ideas of what to say to people who say Science is details and not the big picture? Details vs. big picture in this situation seems arbitrary, but don't you think there's a way the perspective of where scientists come from could possibly be shared in a socially constructive way.

 

[physicsdude30]

Well, he only cares about getting the answers. I don't agree with this approach, but I often see it among some engineers. They worry about missing the forest for the trees, but they miss that the forest is part of a continent, which is part of the earth, which is part of the solar system, which is part of a galaxy, which is part of a universe. I find that very sad.

Yes, as far as being objective, by definition a detail is a part to the whole. So no matter how big of a picture person you are, all you have to do is change the context of the situation and 99% of everyone on planet Earth will think that "big picture" person's perspective no more than a "small detail".

When you see an apple, most look at it and think "apple". They think that's the big picture. If someone's like, "It's red, it's round," most everyone else will think there's something wrong and that person is a details person. Then you switch things around. That "it's red" person studies colors for a living. To him, the apple is a here and now detail which will be gone in five minutes. From that perspective, colors are much more universal, or broad perspective. As far as reality goes, in five years from now no one will even care about that apple, while colors will still be around. I don't know if my thinking is on the right track, but it's like there are polar opposites, the big picture vs. details of a situation, and then the more universal broader principles big picture vs. the here and now details.

I would think for more efficient thinking it's best to look at more than just one big picture, but it seems like there's a lot of people out there who appear arrogant and brag that they're a big picture thinker while everyone else isn't.