Well, first of all - not everyone on this site is an engineer, in the sense of having gone thru enough college to learn things like the laws of thermodynamics, and among those who have degrees, not that many schools really teach critical thinking, or thinking at all.

Second, it's entirely possible to believe in crackpot theories and still be an excellent engineer, as long as the crackpot theories are outside the realm of your work. I know lots of fine electrical engineers who believe in creationism, illuminati conspiracies, that light speed is not a real limit, and all sorts of nonsense - but none of that comes into play in their electrical engineering.

A good friend from highschool simply could not be convinced that a motor couldn't be designed to drive a generator that could drive the motor (100% efficiency) - it was just a matter of gearing it up right. He's VP for new technology at a huge telecomm now.

My own critical thinking came thru many years working in the lab troubleshooting electronics. The simple process of gathering data, making assumptions, and then testing them seems to be beyond a lot of engineers I've seen.

In our work (EE) it's pretty simple to test anything you design - it either works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you were wrong. If your mind is flexible, you learn, and move on to your next mistake.

First, I would take offence at your tone and then secondly I would point out engineering often takes a leap of faith in concept before it is constructed in firm sound design.

Many times new boundaries are pushed as we look at a problem, take it personally, solve it, draw up the resulting fix and then implement it.

Engineers, at least all but the most closed minded of us, look outside common boxes for possible solutions. Some of us silly folks actually believe in an all powerful God and his son Jesus who designed as we realize all that we see and use his designs to solve our problems by looking to his wonderful creation and implementing his designs in our discipline.

This I realize is utter nonsense to you but I consider the perspective and the tone and understand but disagree with your position.

In fact I remember my turning point when confronted by a supposed known engineering fact; Data rate through a twisted pair limiting data transfer to a supposed ceiling.

Engineers faced with this limitation pushed themselves and their concepts outside their realm of comfortable and designed a rather interesting solution, suddenly the physical limits didn't seem as important as they implemented ways to overcome error rates at the receiving end and refine the data stream at the source to overcome said errors generated by the physical laws of the material they were and we are currently using.

Critical eye, a fine requirement of accurate repeatable results and an implementation of said concept all come from a person who desires to be more than just a functionally limited engineer regardless of discipline. The world has many functional engineers in many functional areas of application, while they are useful they often limit our projects with their cookie cutter approaches that are functional but always compromise in some form or other due to the lack of vision and critical eye of the possibilities.

Give me the one engineer who wants to go beyond self imposed limits of vision and has the dogged relentless research drive to find it, document it, demonstrate it. That is the engineer that I want on my project one who looks at a problem and says how did we solve this , how can we solve this better , what was their best approach, what is my best approach and is not limited to his small view of things in the world but open to possibilities. Then give me an accountant to keep him on budget and task

We have had the luxury of visualizing and implementing some pretty cool engineering in our life time.

What is developed in a good engineer is an accountability to a sound process of discovery of solutions and implementation. This cant be taught it is either learned over time in experience working under engineers who are more experienced or refined in an individual that has natural ability as he/she works under an experienced engineer. I know it sounds like an old karate movie but when the master learns from the student engineering moves forward. It is not limited by the functional yet limited engineers despite their best efforts to maintain their relative value by limiting the technology/concepts they chose to permanently adopt in their field they feel safe with.

The understanding that what I know may not be all that there is to know and be willing to admit it is what has always served me in my engineering career.

Engineers do not feel threatened by grand concepts or ideas outside their perception of truth, they don't limit their source of solutions from a common labor perspective to a All loving God, in fact a good one considers the possibilities his or her answers may come from that concept or from that laborer and if it works applies it. The rest of the engineering folks can go back to sleep, others have it covered.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank the mentor who took me under his wing and beat me about the head and face repeatedly as he grew me into a member of what he took great pride in; The engineering profession. He was the chief integration engineer on a airborne project that even now defends the freedom of people who have a multitude of silly ideas, like me.

I didn't mean to offend, and I'm certainly not an atheist, in fact most people would roll heir eyes at my beliefs, but my point is merely that one's personal mythology need not impede one from doing good engineering or science. The lack of critical thinking that allows me to accept my spiritual or political beliefs doesn't hinder my ability to cut straight to the heart of a technical problem and solve it.

Your example is a good one. Faced with a problem defined by traditional limits, it's sometimes possible to find a way to push past those limits by applying new or novel approaches. That's what good engineers do.

But technical problems are not solved by faith. I've read the Bible, and it's absolutely not helpful in mitigating the effects of cosmic radiation on semiconductors - my current technical issue. I have confidence that I can do it, however, and yes I'll even go so far as to say I'll solve it with the brains God gave me. But it won't be by blindly following the precepts of those who came before me, but rather by critically evaluating all the information I can find, using what is useful, and trashing the rest.

I didn't mean to offend, and I'm certainly not an atheist, in fact most people would roll heir eyes at my beliefs,. . .

I took offence at your chosen words - not you - So no issue here. That being said I suppose the ultimate gist of my comments are looking beyond your paradigm helps. What better example then flying beyond the speed of sound. Sometimes our greatest answers come from outside our system. In my opinion this is the Critical Eye of an Engineer - the ability to look in unexpected or lesser traveled roads for a solution. what follows as I have stated is the other part of the critical eye of an engineer, the solid vetting of this concept towards his or her solution. demonstrable consistent excellence of concept. All of this before the system describes why it cant be done and then with documentation and study in hand debunking those who are less able to see in a area of expertise we enjoy. Then of course knowing how to shine on to the accountant when it comes time to build

I am an Electrical Engineer. I firmly believe in God. Anyone with 1/2 a brain realizes that the nonsense that the "scientist" espouse that the univers just condensed from so many random gas molecules is a gross violation of the first law of thermodymanics. Folks you can't have it both ways... Think about it. I work in a Nuclear Power Plant. I don't think you want me "experimenting"

Ask a scientist how the universe evolved - he'll explain why it doesn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. But try to talk to one with a whole brain - your 1/2 brained friends are leading you astray.

I think that it's perfectly acceptable and even desirable for an engineer to occasionally challenge what is "well known" and seriously consider the seemingly impossible. Especially when it's related to his or her field of expertise.

One time in 1 million he or she will surprisingly discover that despite having always been told otherwise, it IS actually possible for the blind ghost of an albino mule to drive a perpetual motion golf-cart from Earth to Alpha Centauri while singing Gilbert & Sullivan.

I would like to make a comment to explain what I think. I am not against the "dare devil engineer" and by far not a conservative since I worked almost all my professional life in developing what was a challenge i.e. things other said "it can not be solved".

What I think is that we have our experience and our knowledge, being a trained engineer or not is not important, what is important is not to blindly believe and say "it is so" before one was able to demonstrate it.

If we have the feeling that what is told is not totally understandable with our own knowledge we have today possibilities nobody even dreamed about not too many years ago to check the information to ask people who may be know more than we know.The net is an opportunity to detect what is possible, what is may be possible and what is not possible. let us use this for a more critical approach.

This is not against dreams.

Dreams are good. Day dreaming on my bike is how I solve my most difficult work problems. A healthy skepticism is also important - not just in the big things, but also in your daily interactions with other engineers, suppliers and vendors. You need to be able to smell when something is too good to be true, whether it's a working Heim space warp drive, or a "preliminary" data sheet on a part that's exactly what you need. I have 7 guys working for me - they all know that they can bring any idea to the table and get a fair hearing, even if it's not related to the work at hand. But they also know that if they're bringing a new idea to the table, they need to really bring it.

As for the net - I use it everyday and insist that everyone who works for me do the same. It's a great place to apply critical thinking skills.

"Critical Thinking" is the thoughtful consideration of 'why we believe what we believe', and eventually the sorting between 'knowing' and 'believing'. It can help resolve between comments made as 'knowledge' by some, when, indeed it may only be their 'belief'. It can help us to sort between 'rumors' and 'facts'. While this process can definitely apply to the engineering / design process, it encompasses most of what we do. Somewhat philosophical, to be certain, but generally a good way to 'pull back the reins' if things begin to get out of hand.

In engineering and design, most of what we do is based on 'proven' causes and effects, and therefore they act as good building blocks for our efforts, but, as it has been said by others, without the 'wildcatting', there would be no invention and little discovery.

One issue that I personally face is when those without a good engineering / design foundation are placed (themselves or by others) in that role. Often, they base their engineering / design endeavors a foundation of software or personal speculation, not really knowing if their results are valid, or even reasonable. I'm not sure who said it, but truly, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". [I deal with acoustics, and the world is FULL of acoustics "experts".]

If we can think critically about what is our endeavor, and sort out between what we "know" and what we "believe" ... and be honest about it ... at least we will know what to 'question' in our calculations, and what to consider, at least, as 'probably accurate'.

In my own group, my job is to oversee, and I try to at least overview the efforts of others, and 'catch' their 'misunderstandings' before it goes too far. All too often, however, I don't know of the 'disasters' until they are at DEFCON 5, and then the task is CRISIS MANAGEMENT. I'm sure this occurs in every company, and I often wonder how much more effective we could be if somehow we could reduce these occurrences.

Maybe we'll never know

"Where is the Critical Eye of Engineers?"

A recent post to another forum paraphrased The Rime of the Ancient Mariner as follows:

Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.

Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
[Nor any drop to drink.]
But Not a Soul to THINK

- The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Coleridge, 1798

I came across this today. It immediately brought to mind the XXXX forums,
posts and the wrangling, thoughtless changing the headed topic with
changes in topics, trailing a long string of prior posts when GROUPING
will serve the purpose except when a short quote is REQUIRED for
appropriate comment, etc., etc., ad infinitum

But Not a Soul to THINK

There is so very much BS and so very little meat that it is difficult
to sort the two to find real and useful information.

The few worst offenders have been told repeatedly to study more and
post less but it seems to have made no impression whatsoever.

Hopefully you all can make the XXXX Forum what it should be! Will you?
*********

If you KNOW what you are talking about say so. OTOH if you don't KNOW, express your OPINION and label it as such. Eliminate all snide remarks however cute you think them to be, and above all answer the OP or portions thereof first and foremost.

Go easy on the brickbats please.

Hi all,

I think there is no difference on the critical eye of engineers and any other profession. The problem as I see it is just the "critical eye".

Regarding how? I think first, one need to have a minimum capability, given by genetics. If no mind handicapped born, we should have more or less the same options.

Second step is taught. One need to be instructed on how to observe things and use his reasoning capabilities.

Third step is continuous improvement by using this acquired abilities.

I think this is more or less the process on any profession which need the use of some "critical eye" (most if not all, but perhaps that played by Charles Chaplin in "Modern Times", just tightening bolts)

Regarding the phrase: "With a surge of Pseudoscience, Quackery, and NIMBYISM being demonstrated in some recent posts" sorry for my awful English, I understand the two first terms, but I don't know (nor the dictionaries I've checked) what's the meaning of NIMBYISM, unless regarding with "critical eye" the meaning of the preceding, and using a bit of etymology, I can suppose it more or less and in some extent I agree. What I'm not so sure is if we all consider let's say "Pseudoscience" the same posts.

Science tries to get knowledge about anything and answers to some problems by stating some hypotheses, then the trying and error phase till the hypotheses is confirmed or rejected.

But don't forget that absolute knowledge is unreachable as has been demonstrated scientifically in several ways: let's say Heisenberg principle, or in maths where we know that we cannot calculate or predict if a proposition has a solution.

In my more than 35 years of engineering experience, I've known and work with surely some hundreds engineers from all around the world and I never asked them about their beliefs, I don't mind if they are Jew, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic or any other religion or sect, just judge them by their technical and professional behaviour.

As I've said in some other threads, I'm catholic and I don't mind the opinion of anybody about this. If I wanted to discuss about religion I wouldn't do it in this forum. When I've stated my beliefs has been just because it's right and it was related with the thread discussion, but I never argued using the Holy Bible, just my poor technical or scientific knowledge.

So I can understand the part of the thread related with "critical eye", but with all my respects to Milo, I think he could have avoided the introduction.

Best regards

NIMBYISM - Not In My Back Yard -ism

The idea that I want you to do something for my benefit (drill an oil well for instance) but I don't want to suffer personally for it (I don't want it in my back yard).

Thanks Kwetz.

Well thought out post.

The intro was just to give background.

milo

Hello nick name, I agree completely with you, we all have to try understand and be critical, but not only engineers. Common people is, as I see it, the main objective of those pseudo-scientists (helped by mass media). Pseudo-scientific issues fortunately use to have a short life in the true scientific world. Common people could believe any news about a water fueled motor or any of the examples you've cited but if they violates any physical law, such as thermodynamical principles, the scientific community use to give no credit.

Anyway, I think you've resumed quite well the situation, so here's my GA.

Best regards

Gentlemen,

I would suggest to close this thread since there is according to my modest opinion a derive toward faith and the basic idea was related to believe not faith.

Faith is not part of an engineering forum and it could only lead to unwished situations.

I am very sorry that my question was misunderstood.

The question was not misunderstood; perhaps the answer is. We must not be afraid to confront prejudice. Critical thinking must be justified with preconceived notions that arise from unwitting influences of religion, politics and cultural prejudice. Faith is not different from belief if belief is unable to be influenced by critical observation. And certainly the engineer is concerned with objective conclusions.

So often, within these pages, I see bias color the conclusions and comments of engineers. I see political conclusions rationalized by the most intricate mental gymnastics. It would be helpful to understand why these influences are not overcome by a simple objective approach that includes known facts without injecting prejudice.

I agree with you but just partially. If you look in detail many threads, you can see not only what you say but also the opposite. I agree with nick_name. We should not mix faith or believes with technical matters, both belong to different worlds. It's as absurd to try to discuss technical issues from the believes point of view as trying to discuss faith or religious issues from the technical point of view. And both things can be seen in some posters.

And at last this is a technical forum...