3 ms·

I've been thinking about some problems recently and one that keeps popping up is "engineering vs science". Autonomous vehicles are the epitome of engineering vs

I've been thinking about some problems recently and one that keeps popping up is "engineering vs science". Autonomous vehicles are the epitome of engineering vs science. Engineering is dirty, pragmatic, and with a lot of trial and errors. Science is pure, abstract (not necessarily practical), and proven. Human brain is great at engineering stuff (that's how we survived the natural selection), but computers are fantastic proof machines. When you wanna map a problem that our brain solves through dirty engineering tricks to something grounded in math and theory, you lose the emergent magic of all the little hacks that made the system possible.

apantel 2y ago
Science is not like that really. Science is mostly experimental, which is pretty much trial and error. The theories produced through that process can closely fit observed results and yet still be wrong, like Newton’s theory of gravitation. There isn’t much in science that is truly pure and proven all the way down to its foundation, though something doesn’t need to be pure or proven to have good predictive power and utility. And there isn’t much that is truly abstract in science since everything is ultimately trying to explain how material reality works, even physics. Math is the only thing that is like what you’re describing.
- behnamoh 2y ago
  You're right—what I said applies to math only. I guess I was thinking about how ML engineers try to frame a problem in math terms whereas our human brain finds the most efficient circuits to solve the problem.
  - thechao 2y ago
    I'm still finding your comments a little confusing; and, now, bordering on the self-contradictory. I think you'll find that the proofs presented in the lower maths tend to be of "the book" form and really overstate the simplicity and clarity available to mathematics 'at the edge'. On the flip side, modern engineering sometimes gets to benefit from the work of centuries and the final (refined) output of science: the solutions are very elegant!

apantel 2y ago

Science is not like that really. Science is mostly experimental, which is pretty much trial and error. The theories produced through that process can closely fit observed results and yet still be wrong, like Newton’s theory of gravitation. There isn’t much in science that is truly pure and proven all the way down to its foundation, though something doesn’t need to be pure or proven to have good predictive power and utility. And there isn’t much that is truly abstract in science since everything is ultimately trying to explain how material reality works, even physics. Math is the only thing that is like what you’re describing.

behnamoh 2y ago
You're right—what I said applies to math only. I guess I was thinking about how ML engineers try to frame a problem in math terms whereas our human brain finds the most efficient circuits to solve the problem.
- thechao 2y ago
  I'm still finding your comments a little confusing; and, now, bordering on the self-contradictory. I think you'll find that the proofs presented in the lower maths tend to be of "the book" form and really overstate the simplicity and clarity available to mathematics 'at the edge'. On the flip side, modern engineering sometimes gets to benefit from the work of centuries and the final (refined) output of science: the solutions are very elegant!