Second attempt to stress some crucial points
omega_M said:
Just wanted to know if PhDs with engineering background still remain engineers or can also be called scientists. I know the distinction between professionals at that level of research is kind of vague. But is it a norm to call engineers with PhD, scientists ?
Danger quoted something I said earlier:
Chris Hillman said:
If you are truly using the scientific method to do genuine experimental (or theoretical) research, then you are functioning as a scientist, and if you build a track record of publishing good research in scientific research journals, you would certainly deserve to be called a scientist even if you were not trained as such.
Look here for a real-life example of an engineer thinking somewhat like a scientist:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=181176&page=2
Notice these points: Vidar compared data with a finite element model requiring minimal physical insight and found a discrepancy, which raises the question: what went wrong? He is about to compare his data with the predictions of the classical theory of elastostatics, which provides (among other things) a formula for the deflection of a cantilever beam. Note that both FEM and the classical beam theory (which are both widely used and very well established) involve certain assumptions which can be violated; if they disagree with data, it might be that the data is bad or it might be that one of these assumptions is violated (in the thread, some possibilities were mentioned). A third type of mathematical analysis was suggested: perturbation analysis of the classical beam theory can be used to try to treat situations which are "close" to the regime where the classical theory is valid. Conceivably this kind of investigation could eventually lead to a paper in an ME journal, suggesting improved mathematical modeling of cantilever beams. That would be very much like science, except that the physics and mathematical techniques being discussed are all well-known and well-established, so it certainly would not be
fundamental science!
(Unlike threads in this subforum, that's a serious thread, BTW, so please don't rush over and leave silly comments.)
(Edit: I wrote that before Astronuc and I independently noticed that question about Vidar is apparently not,
is he a scientist or an engineer?, but rather,
is he an extraterrestial?)
In the original I added this crucial caveat:
Chris Hillman said:
Many engineering students receive extensive training in mathematical methods, but in my experience, they often receive little or no training in the scientific method.
IOW, anyone can
function as a scientist by following the scientific method, but without formal training, there is no guarantee that a particular individual will really know what this means. Some people do seem to understand the scientific method "instinctively", but in my experience, most people certainly do not. Extensive training in math or established physical theories like E&M or thermodynamics doesn't suffice, unfortunately.
omega_M said:
An interesting paragraph from Wiki
omega_M should have stated that this quotation is from a Wikipedia article, "Scientist", which to judge from its edit history has been quite contentious; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientist&action=history
The sentence "There is no sharp distinction between science and engineering, although engineers typically have practical goals in mind while scientists investigate fundamental phenomena" may be due to User:David_Shear (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/David_Shear) in the edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientist&diff=35188203&oldid=35163523
The edit line summary might be misleading; as far as I can see, Shear rewrote the article, rather than
reverting it to a prexisting version.
Regarding that sentence, IMO most scientists would say that there is, at least in principle, a "sharp distinction" between science and anything else. Namely:
science proceeds by the scientific method. Similarly, most mathematicians would say that there is, at least in principle, a "sharp distinction" between mathematics and anything else:
mathematics proceeds by the proof of theorems. In both cases, we can point to unique distinguishing features of doing science or mathematics.
To answer the question, in my experience, most academics would not call engineers either "scientists" or "mathematicians", for this reason: typical engineering activity employs neither scientific methodology nor proof.
Or maybe that's no answer at all, since it begs the question: "what is the scientific method?"
The late Claude Shannon was offered in at least one version of this article as an example of an engineer-mathematician (for sake of argument, one could add geneticist to the list). I could say a lot about that but I doubt that this is the time or place.
mgb_phys said:
In 1959 a famous British scientist did a speech about the 'two cultures', the fact that everyone in power in the UK was an arts/humanities person and didn't understand science.
C. P. Snow ; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Snow if your interest is only casual but beware of WP for anything serious. Fortunately, there will be several books on C. P. Snow and his famous lecture in most university libraries.
I'll leave you with another thought I expressed at PF a few days ago: mathematics is the servant of physics, which is the servant of engineering, which is the servant of humanity, whose purpose is ---to do mathematics!
they just want to find a solution to a problem.
