DISCOVERIES, INVENTIONS & ENGINEERING

[jimbo]

Following is a section of a post by 25362. It is repeated here because it is a significant beginning to the topics to be discussed;

"Yes, I think engineering is a science. A science by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made (directly and indirectly) useful to humans in structures, machines and products.

In addition to the great enginering feats already mentioned I'll add the making of paper (2000-3000 years ago) and later on printing. These were the vehicles to convey the inherited legacy of knowledge through ages and places.

As for energy, the making of steam, steam machines and steam transportation of goods and people merit a high place in the list of engineering achievements. Steam power eased the production of electricity and electronics, which carried energy, information, ideas, light, and images everywhere."

I believe that we are to discuss different categories of "great achievements", such as;

1. Discoveries
2. Inventions
3. Engineered things

I realize that "things" is a weak word, and invite a better one.
jimbo


Buy a dictionary, keep it nearby and USE it. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English is recommended, and Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

 

[jmw]

We might also add a category for some famous failures like the Babage calculator or diference engine.


JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[jimbo]

I prefer to "accentuate the positive".
The subjects are massive already.
jimbo

Buy a dictionary, keep it nearby and USE it. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English is recommended, and Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Personally. I don't think engineering is a science. I think it is the application of science. And one thing which annoys me is that computer programmers and engineers often call themselves "computer scientists", which I think is a misuse of the term. I'm not saying that many scientists don't actually spend most of their time doing engineering, or that some of what engineers sometimes do is actually science - only that the terms are not clearly understood, or used correctly by the public. The content of the magazine "popular science" is actually nearly all technology of one kind or another. But if enough people define science and engineering to be the same thing, I can't really argue, since the dictionary definition will gradually change over time to reflect the fact. That is the case with everything, unfortunately.

 

[IRstuff]

Overall, it's a very thin distinction. Most dictionary definitions of "science" do not preclude engineering outright. Only

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=science*1+0&dict=A

gives:

(knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world, by observation and experiment

Thus, the main distinction is "the natural.. world." Beyond that, they're at least kissing cousins if not fraternal twins.

TTFN

 

[25362]

Of engineering we already expressed our opinion. Computer science is a branch of knowledge concerned with information processes, the structures and procedures representing these processes, and their implementation in information-processing systems.

What is so esoteric about science that neither engineering nor computing can be considered branches, out of many others ? Is it possible that there is a confusion with technology ? Technology is the application of systematic knowledge to processes, mainly industrial, thus being connected with engineering and science in general.

 

[zdas04]

I was once told that any endevour that calls itself a "science" isn't. "Computer Science" is the most blatent of all these. I have no problem with "Software Engineer", but a computer science ciruculum is a perversion of the language.

Back to the thread. I think "science" is "the collection of efforts aimed at discovering the nature of any portion of the universe" and "engineering" is the "systematic application of scientific knowledge to modify some portion of the universe". These aren't Webster's definitions, but they are where I draw the line in my mind.

While the folks did a lot of science at Oak Ridge and Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project, those emminent scientists certainly modified the world. Oak Ridge was more an engineering and plumbing accomplishment than a scientific one.

David

 

[25362]

Most people speak of "natural" sciences, but what about theology, phylosophy, and the like. Are these also sciences, or should they be clasified a science fiction ?

 

[Skogsgurra]

zdas,

I can not agree. Computer science is as much science as is rocket science or biology or any other science.

Of course, the classes that teach MS application programs should not be labeled computer science - I agree there.

But the organisation and operation of a computer, its peripherals and its operating system IS science. So is the science of computer languages, compiler design and several related disciplines.

It is such a pity that Gary Killdal didn't answer (the tradition says so) the phone when IBM rang him about a new OS for their little Personal Computer. If Gary and his folks at Digital Research had produced the PC DOS, I am convinced that there would have been less objections to the term "computer science".

Bill Gates did answer and gave IBM a crippled amateur system. It has taken a lot of effort and lots and lots of user agony before it evolved into the XP of today. The process has been a lot more ad hoc and trial and error than scientific. But that does not, in my opinion, disqualify computer science as a science.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Well, all this goes to show just how how confused the issues are, when there seems to be no general agreement about what diferentiates science and engineering. People have written whole books about what science and engineering actually are, and some have gone so far as to claim that they are one and the same. But unless one can come to an agreement on a definition ahead of time, however arbitrary or controversial it may be, all further discussion is fruitless. In my opinion, one is not doing science unless one is discovering some new fact about natural phenomena. So in the case of so called "computer science", there might be instances where one discovered something about a natural process such as evolution because of a computer simulation or something of that kind, but the majority of "computer science" is simply engineering, or in other words the application of known science to create something which hitherto did not exist.

 

[zdas04]

skogsgurra,
EnglishMuffin answered for me, but let me add my own spin.

My first 10 years out of college I managed software-development projects and the "computer science" grads working for me (hundreds over the decade) were either "programmers" who were generally incapable of translating real-world problems into code (i.e., you had to synthesize the problems into the programmer's format or the results were unpredictable and usually worthless) or "software engineers" who could translate often very difficult processes into a format the programmers could successfully convert to code.

Many of both groups were very competent, but the best among them fit much more cleanly into the "application of knowledge" category than the "discovery of knowledge" category.

Your operating system example may be absolutely accurate, but it is also absolutely irrelevant. The efforts by either group were the application of knowledge to a supremely difficult task and in my mind was clearly engineering - the result was pretty useful in and of itself.

The end result of the best of the Biologists, Chemists, or Physicists is information that engineers can eventually turn into a product or process.

I stand by my statement that "Computer Science ain't Science"


David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

http://www.muleshoe-eng.com

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[Skogsgurra]

Muffin and Zdas,

I take your points - and I think that I understand them. I already said that classes teaching programming techniques should not be confused with computer science. What I was thinking about is the kind of computer science that explores unknown mathematical and logical structures and discovers new ways of solving problems or make good use of them otherwise.

To me, that is science. Just as much as mathematics is science. I even think that mathematics was called "Queen of sciences" by Gauss (or was it Leibnitz?)

As an engineer in the electric field (no pun) I have a very shallow knowledge about this subject. But I cannot help thinking that I am right and that you have a much too narrow view of what computer science really is.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Well, if you mean by "computer science" the sort of things to be found in Stephen Wolfram's "A new kind of science", I would agree with you. But to most people, computer science is simply synonymous with programming or computer design, and that is what I am objecting to. And in similar vein, I think as far as most people were concerned, the Apollo program was thought of as a scientific achievement, not an engineering one. But of course, Challenger and Columbia were "engineering failures".

 

[Skogsgurra]

We have some sort of an understanding. I like that.

 

[zdas04]

I'm on board. The really wonderful breakthrough's in computer theory have come from mathmetician's, physicists, and really amazing hobbyists. I can't come up with a single theoretical advance that has come from a "computer science" ciruculum. I can come up with many advances in the explaination of why computers work from other fields.

David

 

[IRstuff]

Apollo and the rest of the space program's goals were science, since field study is at the core of most natural sciences.

However, Apollo, itself, was an engineering achievement, not a scientific achievement. There is nothing natural about putting 3 people at the end of Roman candle and tossing them into space.

As a analogy, one can consider the exploration of the Amazon to be a natural science endeavor, but the plane that got them there was an engineering endeavor.

TTFN

 

[sreid]

The "Devils Data Processing Dictionary" defines "Computer Science" as follows;

"Computer Science is to Science as Plumbing is to Hydrodynamics"

 

[GregLocock]

"Science investigates what is. Engineering creates that that has never existed."



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[Skogsgurra]

There must be some underlying misunderstanding here. I do not think that I am a dumb and badly informed person. And I do not think that people like Muffin, zdas, IRstuff, sreid and GregLocock are either.

If I take one step backward and look at what we are discussing, I think that there must be some cultural or linguistic differences between your science and my science.

The Swedish word for "science" is actually "vetenskap" which can be translated to "knowledgeship". And I think that a lot of "knowledgeship" is needed in computer science. But I also understand that you need very few bunsen burners and test tubes, and those attributes seem to be an important part of science if you look the word up in illustrated US dictionaries.

White coats seem to be important in both sciences - more so in computer science in the earlier days. Less so nowadays ;-)

 

[GregLocock]

That quote is probably a little hard to decipher unless you know english very well.

Perhaps it would be better to paraphrase it as

"Science investigates what already exists. Engineering creates things that have never existed before."

I don't know who came up with that one, I don't really agree with it in some ways, but it's a fun one to throw back at the scientists, who often claim that engineering is merely the practical implementation of science.



Cheers

Greg Locock