2 ms·
This is a bit of a false distinction, all told. More than a few of our "scientific discoveries" were the results of studying the best engineering could do at t
by taeric 4y ago
This is a bit of a false distinction, all told. More than a few of our "scientific discoveries" were the results of studying the best engineering could do at the time.
- JohnFen 4y agoI think the distinction is valid and useful, but science and engineering do each inform the other. The point is that the scientist is primarily intending to learn something solid about reality, and the engineer is primarily intending to create something that is practically useful.
- taeric 4y agoI get the intent of the distinction. I just don't know that it has ever been as clean of a taxonomy as would be desired. Maybe we have had some solid "pure scientists." Largely we would label them closer to philosophers? That said, the vast majority that you know the name of, were probably employed closer to what we think of as engineers in today's parlance. Or am I off here and the likes of Feynman, Faraday, Fourier, Maxwell, etc. would not have been said to be working on engineering problems, by modern eyes? My gut is that it gets difficult as looking at things with our modern lens of corporations today makes it hard to really consider institutions of the past?