Nuh uh. Science answers why. Engineering answers how.

Nuh uh. Science answers why. Engineering answers how.

=====

Science depends on a cause-effect relationship. “Why” is a causation question. Each of the sciences looks for underlying causes and see observations as effects of causes.

Engineering is “how”. How do I put this together? Does it work? GREAT! Why does building a bridge work this way? Who cares – it works! Engineering and science tend to be married a lot but they don’t need each other.

It’s only post 1950s that engineering was placed as subservient to science.

=====

Meteorologists absolutely _do_ tell you why a hurricane is forming.

It’s a chain of hows that becomes an answer to a why.

There’s other ways to answer a “why” such as religious, which I don’t count as relevant.

—–

But if you want to compare:
a) Religion: Why? [whatever sounds good to them]
b) Sciences: Why? [chain of hows moving back in time to a causation]

=======

Why : for what purpose, cause or reason.

======

Anecdote: Nephew when in 4h grade. Forced into a group activity on robotics. Did well – his gruop got a prize -but I was sad he didn’t like it.

But – his rants were priceless.

“Why do they keep saying STEM? This is ENGINEERING, not Science. It’s not Technology. It’s not Math. It’s ENGINEERING. ”

I got to hear that rant of his a few times and it was all his own although it sounds like something I might say. He knew the differences and hated mushed together things.

======

“The how, provided by science, answers the why, provided by philosophy or religion or whatever you like.”

Ok, so you’re kicking it into “philosophy of science” now? That’s a dimension “up” and away, invisible to most who do sciences.

======

You’re at the “demarcation problem” zone and perhaps beyond into the political conflict thesis zone. I’m nowhere near that zone. Too messy and fighty.

=====

So, why are scientists marching?

Demarcation.
Funding can funnel into zones outside of demarcated zone, into pseudo-sciences and outright fictions.

—-

This is indeed a philosophy problem at this point but one with pragmatic consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

——

I was a systems analyst for a pharmaceutcal company for a few years. It’s a bridge position, part engineering and part business. Hence, I know why they march.

—–

[I was also systems engineer for what I worked on, producing products that were turnkey and maintained through their lifecycle. But I had to be nimble and agile to fit business requirements and I was a team of one, coordinating ad-hoc groups to suit the needs of the project at hand. Pain in the ass but I mostly liked it]

=======

It’s messy when politics deigns funding should go to pseudo-science and changes that pseudo-science into a science for political and funding reasons.

======

Florida: 2015. My Gov Rick Scott put a gag order on certain scientific terms.

“climate change” and “global warming.” are two.

What’s the demarcation in Florida in climate science? Messy.

======

I agree that the reality will exist whatever the words chosen yet also, words construct our filters of reality and as gaining direct non-sensory and non-instrumental access to reality is a problematic affair at best, we have to contend with the filters.

=======

But if you have an exclusive pass to Direct Insight, do tell. There’s a group of seekers in a rural village in India just looking for their latest guru. Like Saffron?

=====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4 − two =

Leave a Reply