5 ms·

Titles can be contextual. I do not refer to myself (a PhD) as a doctor in a hospital because others could incorrectly think I was a physician. This problem is e

by notlob 9y ago

Titles can be contextual. I do not refer to myself (a PhD) as a doctor in a hospital because others could incorrectly think I was a physician. This problem is especially vexing for nurses with PhDs.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
A Medical Doctor must have specific training to not harm their patients. An Engineer designs functional things. No reasonable person is going to think that him calling himself an "Electrical Engineer", which he is, construes that he had specific training in designing traffic infrastructure that doesn't accidentally harm people. Traffic infrastructure is not a nuanced topic full of dangerous pitfalls. He was claiming that he had a background in engineering that is applicable to the subject, so that his viewpoint would not be cast aside. The state wanted to ignore his viewpoint, so they fined him.
- takk309 9y ago
  I very much disagree with you. While traffic engineering failures may not be as acute as a medical doctor, the effects can be much more expensive and far reaching. For example, let us say that a road has a design speed of 55 mph. That would dictate the maximum curvature of the horizontal alignment. If an engineer chooses to ignore this design speed and makes the corner too tight, there will likely be a crash cluster at this location. The cost to mitigate that kind of mistake could be very expensive and possibly cost multiple lives. Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. While the basics of structural engineering are relatively simple the consequences of failure are very high. If a multi-story structure collapses, a lot of people will be injured or killed. That is why it is important to know more than just the basics of what goes into structural engineering. I am not trying to down play the importance of training for medical doctors. I am trying to highlight that engineers need to have training and a regulatory board that is used to track and prove that the training has been completed to an acceptable level. If any yahoo is able to say, "I am an engineer, trust me," how do you prove his credentials? Just like with a medical doctor, you would look up his certification.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. We aren't even talking about structural engineering here. We are talking about an electrical engineer submitting comments regarding traffic. The only reason these are related is the word "engineer", which is ambiguous. The contents of this man's letter are not physically acting upon traffic. They were submitted to be considered by a group of "licensed" traffic engineers. The subject does not require the decade of specific education that is required by a medical doctor, or even months of training that is required by an EMT. It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman, making the fact that he is an electrical engineer important to the subject. The state fined him for his claim of being an engineer, defining the word by its context (traffic lights) instead of by its adjective (electrical). The state abused this notion to delegitimize his words, and to disincentivize him commenting in the first place.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      > It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman I would go further and say that as a EE working in the field he would understand this issue better than a traffic engineer would.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        By defining a "traffic engineer" as a title that demands license, we prevent discussion from other people. I am very critical of the idea that a license should be required to discuss the traffic system that we all interact with.
        takk309 9y ago
        There is nothing preventing you from talking about traffic systems. There are, however, laws preventing you from claiming to be an engineer with expertise in the subject in a public forum.
- notlob 9y ago
  This misses my point. My point is that while I am a "doctor" I am not a physician, and that even though I use the title in other places it's prudent to be very careful about it in a medical setting because it could be misconstrued. Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers while one is using the industrial exemption.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers. I disagree. In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental. A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice. The word "engineer" does not carry this implication, nor should it. When I tell people that I am a "Software Engineer", I am expressing years of self-education, nuanced understanding, etc. This title is not misconstrued as having a degree or license, of which I have neither. If I want to claim to have a degree, I will be explicit about it. Calling myself an "engineer" is a very useful way to express the complicated body of knowledge that I possess. If the word suddenly implies credentials, of which I do not possess, I am suddenly considered a fraud. TL;DR You can consider me a fraud by redefining what an "engineer" is, but that doesn't make me one, so please don't redefine engineer. That does not help discourse.
    - notlob 9y ago
      > In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental. This is backwards from my perspective. Engineering has long been a licensed profession. It is only recently that a group of people have chosen, for some reason beyond me, to call themselves "software engineers" and avail themselves of the industrial exemption. I'm not a fan but the ship has sailed on that one. > A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice. There are many MDs and DOs that are not licensed by their state boards and they too have to take care with misrepresenting themselves as physicians licensed to practice. The same is true of people using the industrial exemption to practice engineering, one cannot use the industrial exemption to practice before the public. TL;DR from my perspective (PhD in engineering but not an engineer) there is a newer group people who are attempting to redefine what "engineer" means as a profession, and that redefinition relaxes education, experience, and professional conduct standards by quite a bit. I realize that like the Browncoats of Firefly I am on the losing side, and also like the Browncoats I don't like it.

by notlob 9y ago

Titles can be contextual. I do not refer to myself (a PhD) as a doctor in a hospital because others could incorrectly think I was a physician. This problem is especially vexing for nurses with PhDs.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

A Medical Doctor must have specific training to not harm their patients. An Engineer designs functional things. No reasonable person is going to think that him calling himself an "Electrical Engineer", which he is, construes that he had specific training in designing traffic infrastructure that doesn't accidentally harm people. Traffic infrastructure is not a nuanced topic full of dangerous pitfalls. He was claiming that he had a background in engineering that is applicable to the subject, so that his viewpoint would not be cast aside. The state wanted to ignore his viewpoint, so they fined him.

takk309 9y ago
I very much disagree with you. While traffic engineering failures may not be as acute as a medical doctor, the effects can be much more expensive and far reaching. For example, let us say that a road has a design speed of 55 mph. That would dictate the maximum curvature of the horizontal alignment. If an engineer chooses to ignore this design speed and makes the corner too tight, there will likely be a crash cluster at this location. The cost to mitigate that kind of mistake could be very expensive and possibly cost multiple lives. Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. While the basics of structural engineering are relatively simple the consequences of failure are very high. If a multi-story structure collapses, a lot of people will be injured or killed. That is why it is important to know more than just the basics of what goes into structural engineering. I am not trying to down play the importance of training for medical doctors. I am trying to highlight that engineers need to have training and a regulatory board that is used to track and prove that the training has been completed to an acceptable level. If any yahoo is able to say, "I am an engineer, trust me," how do you prove his credentials? Just like with a medical doctor, you would look up his certification.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > Another more extreme, yet more common, example is structural engineering. We aren't even talking about structural engineering here. We are talking about an electrical engineer submitting comments regarding traffic. The only reason these are related is the word "engineer", which is ambiguous. The contents of this man's letter are not physically acting upon traffic. They were submitted to be considered by a group of "licensed" traffic engineers. The subject does not require the decade of specific education that is required by a medical doctor, or even months of training that is required by an EMT. It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman, making the fact that he is an electrical engineer important to the subject. The state fined him for his claim of being an engineer, defining the word by its context (traffic lights) instead of by its adjective (electrical). The state abused this notion to delegitimize his words, and to disincentivize him commenting in the first place.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    > It's about a traffic light camera, which an electrical engineer would be able to understand significantly better than a layman I would go further and say that as a EE working in the field he would understand this issue better than a traffic engineer would.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      By defining a "traffic engineer" as a title that demands license, we prevent discussion from other people. I am very critical of the idea that a license should be required to discuss the traffic system that we all interact with.
      - takk309 9y ago
        There is nothing preventing you from talking about traffic systems. There are, however, laws preventing you from claiming to be an engineer with expertise in the subject in a public forum.
notlob 9y ago
This misses my point. My point is that while I am a "doctor" I am not a physician, and that even though I use the title in other places it's prudent to be very careful about it in a medical setting because it could be misconstrued. Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers while one is using the industrial exemption.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > Perhaps it would be prudent to demonstrate similar care when addressing the government organization that cares very much about licensing engineers. I disagree. In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental. A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice. The word "engineer" does not carry this implication, nor should it. When I tell people that I am a "Software Engineer", I am expressing years of self-education, nuanced understanding, etc. This title is not misconstrued as having a degree or license, of which I have neither. If I want to claim to have a degree, I will be explicit about it. Calling myself an "engineer" is a very useful way to express the complicated body of knowledge that I possess. If the word suddenly implies credentials, of which I do not possess, I am suddenly considered a fraud. TL;DR You can consider me a fraud by redefining what an "engineer" is, but that doesn't make me one, so please don't redefine engineer. That does not help discourse.
  - notlob 9y ago
    > In this scenario, the state has redefined the meaning of "engineer" in a way that is very detrimental. This is backwards from my perspective. Engineering has long been a licensed profession. It is only recently that a group of people have chosen, for some reason beyond me, to call themselves "software engineers" and avail themselves of the industrial exemption. I'm not a fan but the ship has sailed on that one. > A Medical Doctor or physician implies with his or her title, authority to practice. There are many MDs and DOs that are not licensed by their state boards and they too have to take care with misrepresenting themselves as physicians licensed to practice. The same is true of people using the industrial exemption to practice engineering, one cannot use the industrial exemption to practice before the public. TL;DR from my perspective (PhD in engineering but not an engineer) there is a newer group people who are attempting to redefine what "engineer" means as a profession, and that redefinition relaxes education, experience, and professional conduct standards by quite a bit. I realize that like the Browncoats of Firefly I am on the losing side, and also like the Browncoats I don't like it.