3 ms·

Now do UX Researchers. It's just a label on a box to put people in. I don't really know what "science" or "engineering" is anymore--my SO is a neuroscience phd

Now do UX Researchers. It's just a label on a box to put people in. I don't really know what "science" or "engineering" is anymore--my SO is a neuroscience phd and has maintained "science is not synonymous with the scientific method; a lot of 'research' science is just collecting and publishing data and it does not need to be reproducible" which makes enough sense but challenges a lot of my priors. Engineers don't traditionally even "build" anything and there are both upper-case and lower-case engineers in title and legal designation. Comparatively and in sum the distinction between computer scientist and programmer is actually somewhat simple and quaint.

drillsteps5 2mo ago
>It's just a label on a box to put people in. What we call things is important because that's how we convey meaning/definition of things. Because when we say "computer scientists" people will start comparing them to other scientists which is completely inaccurate. >Engineers don't traditionally even "build" anything and there are both upper-case and lower-case engineers in title and legal designation. Not sure what the difference is between Engineer and engineer (again, definitions are important), but I would be ok with equating programmers with other trades...people, like electricians, car mechanics, carpenters, etc. And then higher-end IT professionals (infra/data/application architects) would be akin to engineers, designing, but not building (for the most part). But neither category would still be scientists.