Jorrie,

THis reminds me of a lecture that I had in an undergraduate stratigraphy course, where the professor (a geologist), was poking fun at the differences between how a "scientist" (i.e., geologist) and an "engineer" would refer to soil:

To a geologist:

A well sorted soil has particles all of similar size, and is therefore poorly graded

A poorly sorted soil has particles with a variety of sizes, and is therefore well graded.

But to an engineer …

A poorly sorted soil is well graded, having particles all of similar size.

A well sorted soil is poorly graded, having particles with a variety of sizes.

Hi JMAN.

Interesting one - the one that stick best to my memory is the (joke, I suppose) of the scientist and the engineer that were separately given this problem.

You are standing at the entrance to a room. At the opposite wall stands the most beautiful girl. If you can reach the girl by jumping half the remaining distance in every jump, you can 'have her'.

The scientist turned down the invitation, declaring that it is impossible to reach the girl with such a restriction. The engineer immediately started jumping, because he reckoned that he can get 'close enough for all practical purposes.'

Jorrie

When i was in my senior year in physics i remember a in advanced quantum mechanics, my professor (a graduate of caltech) would start derivation along this long chalk board, this would take about 30 minutes to write out. When he got to the end something would be wrong in his results. So he would start checking, and back calculate that the was a sign error somewhere in his calculation. His response would be that the sign was unimportant, the concept was there. My electricity and magnetism professor from MIT woulod do the same thing. They would grade your tests the same way, you could get a wrong answer and get full credit.

However, when I went to graduate school as an engineer, I found they cared much less about the derivation, except for partial credit, but most of the problem credit always went to the correct resulting answer. A lot of working engineers i know don't care how you get there as long as the answer is reasonably correct. On the other hand, all the physicist i know don't event seem to think about an answer just the theory (to them there doesn't seem to be a correct answer).

not satisfying answer

Hmm, geologist and physicist vastly different. Also, working as a engineer in the geotechnical field and having taken a number of my graduate courses in advnace geology, I almost always hear everyone refer to materials in engineering terms of well graded or poorly graded first. Only geologist ever refer to sorting, and usually just to clarify what they mean by gradation to the geologist with no field experience.Geology is a field that typically defers the technical issues to the geotechnical and geologic engineers since they will have a higher math, physics, and chemistry skills. Geologists are more along the line what Jorrie is describing as more practical. Where engineers will want lab results generally, geologist would look at a rock in the field and make the call (This is why NASA want geologic training for the crews on the moon landings). However, geologists frequent lean away from making these calls when it will be used for the basis of a mehanical property of the soil for some major structure.

Jorrie,

I think that this also happens even with two people that have had basically have the same training, but use different thought processes.

Early in my career, I worked for a guy that was a bit uptight, and always busy. Occasionally, I would come to him with a problem, only because I assumed that he had worked it out before, and it would save me a bit of time if he already had done the math. Often, he would say that he was busy, and would get back to me later. I'd think about it a bit and figure it out myself.

Days later, he would come up to me and immediately start explaining the three or four pages of calculations he had done to solve the problem. Being polite, I would wait until he was done. I would then show him the 1/4 page of calculations I had done to solve the problem. He was always taken aback, and would say "Well, you have made an awful lot of assumptions to do it that way". Funny though, we always had the exact same answer.

Likewise, I had a technician that worked for me that really did not have the technical background or the math skills to solve some of the problems that he encountered. He would often try to work it out himself, and usually asked me to check his work. He almost always had the "wrong" answer, but it was usually close enough for what he was doing. His was able to do this by thinking each stage of the problem though, coming up with an analogy to something he did understand, and doing the basic math.

Tad

Hi Tad.

Yep, with good intuition, one can make a few 'leaps of faith' and mostly get away with it. I may let you down sometimes, so it's a good idea to test it against someone who goes through the tedious math...

Jorrie

I offer a different perspective on the difference between engineers and scientists, maybe because I operate on the fringes of both worlds.

In the engineering world, I am a drafter. I don't often add anything to the design process. My job is to present the information in a way that someone can use to build the item.

In the science world, I am a storm spotter and have studied weather off and on for 40 years.

To me, science is about discovery and explaining how things work. Engineering is taking what scientists have discovered and applying it to create things.

So, you could say an engineer is part artist, part scientist.

Years ago I was at a meeting of the Northeast Oklahoma Chapter of the American Meteorological Society, held at a restaurant. I sat next to the Science and Operations Officer of the Tulsa National Weather Service Office.
During the meal before the meeting started, I mentioned that meteorologists studying tornaodes could benefit by approaching tornadogenesis the way an engineer would. Instead of asking how nature produces torndoes, ask how would I build a tornado? We have a definition of what a tornado is, and a specification for the minimum wind speed of a tornado. Then consider the known factors and how to put them together to produce the desired result.
After our conversation, he was very deep in thought for a while!

Hi 3Doug, yep, that's more or less the standard definition of engineers vs. scientists.

I like your "... ask how would I build a tornado?"

Most engineers would immediately start to talk about some fighter aircraft...

Jorrie

Good discussion.

It's the wise man who knows when to be the scientist and when the engineer!

I find I often fly by the seat of my pants...but when it doesn't work out...I'll tidy my desk or bench....pull out the pencil and paper and have a good think...

Then if I need to experiment I'll go back to good solid principals, play with one variable at a time and try and get a scientific understanding of whatever I'm trying to do. If necessary go back to the text books/internet whatever.

I think the key is recognising when to stop! Whichever approach isn't working...

Halo, Jorrie...

My point of view is that scientists make the theoretical structures (equations e.t.c.) and engineers apply these theoretical structures in a practical way, in order built systems or structures and to solve practical problems...

For example Maxwell made out the equations of electromagnetism and electrical engineers apply these equations in a practical way...

Jorrie, I want your help in another issue: I want to make a new bloq entry about the black holes (I have already prepared it with some interesting drawings made by me)... How can I do such a thing???...

Measure with micrometer--Science

Mark with Chalk--Engineering

Cut with Axe--Manufacturing

Said another way:

Scientists measure, theorize, and predict. Science is about rigourously searching for Truth and Understanding by constantly questioning. Scientists know very little but have many theories. Scientists deal with uncertainty through continuing research and questioning.

Engineers evaluate and apply the best theories developed by science. Our role is to judge the current state of knowledge and decide how accurate it is and how precisely it can be applied. Engineers know a lot of things but are famous for having blind spots. Engineers deal with uncertainty by incorporating safety factors into their designs.

Jorrie,

The string of posts shows how much perseverence is required to boil an abstract question down to a concrete answer. I hope everyone appreciates how much effort you put into answering some of the naive questions we pepper you with frequently. Thank you!

Looking back on my own experiences, when I consider myself to be something of an "expert" on a subject, I sometimes find myself giving rote responses to questions from people with less formal expertise. My knee-jerk reaction is either to assume they've adopted some common misconception, to which I respond with my standard lecture, or I pick at technical flaws in their phrasing of the question, without responding to the gist of the question. In both cases, I may later be surprised at how interesting the underlying question really was, because frankly I just wasn't paying enough attention or just couldn't interpret the question clearly. And sometimes it's tempting to pretend the question didn't make any sense, so I won't have to admit I don't know the answer! Besides, it may take an exhausting game of "20 questions" to find out what the questioner really had in mind.

I don't envy anyone being the "guru" on a physics or cosmology blog.

HI JORIE: it's an old thread so you may never read this. It's was told to me a long time ago in a joking way by one of my old mentors. Toned down, A physicist and a engineer were selected participants on a game show, the contest entailed a race to what was ever behind the curtain when they opened it, the rules were run half the way, stop and count to three, continue the process of running the remaining half stopping and counting and the first contestant to reach the prize wins. The curtain opened and revealed a scantily clad beauty, the engineer took off at a dead run, the physicist didn't move when asked by the host if he liked women he said of course, but it is impossible he'll never get there. Catching up with the panting engineer the host informed him that his task was impossible he would get never get there. The engineer annoyingly replied I know that, but I'll get close enough! The difference is physicists must be exact in their work, engineers must get close enough to make their project work.

haha yeah i belive that to! 014156