Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Engineers have to produce results in the real world. Buildings that don't fall down, planes that don't crash, cars that perform better than the other company's, electronics that do what they are supposed to and don't fail.
Lying to people to get enough votes, as liberals must do to push their agenda, doesn't cut it in the engineer's world. He must deal with truth, reality and what the results actually are, not what he dreams it would be nice if they were. Or else truth and reality will deal with him.
Well stop trying to fit today's society into past history.
There were no engineers back then.
Engineering evolved from science and math.
Did you see what you just said? You are focusing on the present while ignoring the past. Engineering would exist without the scientists of history that has discovered the things they now do.
The professions of the future that currently do no exist is because scientists haven't discovered what they will be doing yet.
You are focusing on the present while ignoring the past and future.
Did you see what you just said? You are focusing on the present while ignoring the past. Engineering would exist without the scientists of history that has discovered the things they now do.
The professions of the future that currently do no exist is because scientists haven't discovered what they will be doing yet.
You are focusing on the present while ignoring the past and future.
Nowadays the boundary between science and engineering is not that clear.
A PhD in mechanical engineering needs to learn tons of theoretical mechanics, probably more than most physics majors. They call themselves engineers but they also do research.
Did you see what you just said? You are focusing on the present while ignoring the past. Engineering would exist without the scientists of history that has discovered the things they now do.
The professions of the future that currently do no exist is because scientists haven't discovered what they will be doing yet.
You are focusing on the present while ignoring the past and future.
Did you read the last sentence of my post ?
You can't talk about engineering in Newton's time because there was no "engineering" then.
DaVinci was known as an artist in his time yet he was much more.
Science queries while engineering applies.
One is no better than the other.
Engineers tend to view themselves as much less liberal and slightly more conservative than the general public, according to a recent survey of over 1,200 readers of MACHINE DESIGN and Electronic Design magazines. The same survey also found that engineers say they are more likely to be Republican (42.1%) or Independent (33.7%) voters, as opposed to Democrats (14.5%). And although over a third of the engineers think Republicans represent the best interests of the engineering community better than Democrats, a majority of engineers (48.1%) believe neither party is really on the side of engineers.
How is 42% republican/conservative not in line with the general public? [40% Gallup]
Simple 5th grade math tells me that 33.7% + 14.5 % = 48.2 % are non republican and the larger percentage of engineers. In addition, 9.7% of the respondents did not affiliate with any politicial faction and hence should be added to the non republican/consrevative percentatge making the total percentage of non republican/consrevatives...
How is 42% republican/conservative not in line with the general public? [40% Gallup]
Is 14.5% Democrat voters in line with the general public?
No.
Not surprising. Engineers have very highly developed critical thinking skills. They don't fall for Democrat pie-in-the-sky lies and promises that don't amount to anything but more people on the welfare/food stamp rolls.
Well stop trying to fit today's society into past history.
There were no engineers back then.
Engineering evolved from science and math.
Ancient flint-knapping?
Metallurgy that discovered bronze, iron, and how to make advanced metal tools?
The Egyptian pyramids?
The Great Wall of China?
The Roman aqueducts or roadways?
Galileo's work and application of optics?
Any of the cathedrals or fortresses from middle age Europe?
We may not have called it engineering, but any product or facility that will be around long after we are all gone is surely the product of well engineered solutions.
The entire discussion here of "Scientists vs Engineers" is a false choice. Engineers need scientists to discover basic principles; Scientists need Engineers to apply their findings and contribute back to the body of knowledge. There is no hard line between the two.
The entire discussion here of "Scientists vs Engineers" is a false choice. Engineers need scientists to discover basic principles; Scientists need Engineers to apply their findings and contribute back to the body of knowledge. There is no hard line between the two.
Exactly. It's just that the attitude of 'scientists sit around day dreaming about nothing' is kind of offensive.
It kind of reminds me of that Issac Asimov story "The Billiard Ball" about the scientist and the engineer who were bitter rivals with each other.
Ancient flint-knapping?
Metallurgy that discovered bronze, iron, and how to make advanced metal tools?
The Egyptian pyramids?
The Great Wall of China?
The Roman aqueducts or roadways?
Galileo's work and application of optics?
Any of the cathedrals or fortresses from middle age Europe?
We may not have called it engineering, but any product or facility that will be around long after we are all gone is surely the product of well engineered solutions.
The entire discussion here of "Scientists vs Engineers" is a false choice. Engineers need scientists to discover basic principles; Scientists need Engineers to apply their findings and contribute back to the body of knowledge. There is no hard line between the two.
Actually the thread is about engineers being more conservative.
Someone commented on scientists being more liberal.
And then it got into which field is "better".
The engineers I've worked with tend to be fiscally more conservative but socially are divided between liberal and conservative thinking.
They are the ones that ask..if you cut taxes then why aren't you cutting the budget as well ?
They are the ones saying if you cut revenue then you have to cut spending to balance things out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
