How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST 1

[jgoebel]

I realize that this is an engineering forum, but how many of you would consider yourself a scientist?

I would think of scientist in terms of taking something that either

1 is heavily based on the recent advanced research of another and then applying this to bettering something or
2 is involved in the advanced research (with or without a particular field/goal in mind)

It seems as though most engineers are all about applying recognized common standards/ products / practices to designing the most efficient systems possible.

How many of you are really 'pushing the envelope'?

 

[GregLocock]

I don't.

Scientists use the scientific method.

Scientists issue peer reviewed papers.

Scientists' experiments are not valid unless they are statistically reliable and can be repeated by other people.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[metengr]

How many of you are really 'pushing the envelope'?

As much as I can.

 

[sms]

I am involved with pushing the envelope a lot, but that does not make me a scientist. Both item 1 and 2 could be used to describe engineering, especially point 1.

Scientists bring on engineers to apply what they learn, that is what engineers are for. Scientists discover or investigate physical principals, and may dream up some ideas on how these principals might be applied to better our lives, but it is the engineers that make it happen. Where I work we have corridors full of scientists, but for every scientist there are probably ten engineers (maybe more) in our organization.




"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" Oddball, "Kelly's Heros" 1970

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

 

[jgoebel]

You guys are selling out in the worst of ways.

 

[apsix]

"You guys are selling out in the worst of ways"

qué?

 

[ctopher]

I sort of see scientists using engineers to do their "dirty" work. Same as engineers using drafters.
I would never consider myself to be a scientist. I'm not degreed to do it and not payed for it. I design parts, not work with hypotheses, laws or theories.
I have worked with a lot of Pseudoscientists. I'm not one of them.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[corus]

Working in research I probably satisfy 1) of the OPs criteria though I don't think the second part - "is involved in the advanced research (with or without a particular field/goal in mind)" is applicable to anyone other than theoretical physicists who have no particular goal in mind.

I don't wear a white coat though and the job title still says engineer.

corus

 

[SomptingGuy]

#2 is what universities do. They don't need a financial goal. Knowledge is their goal.

 

[271828]

I'm mostly into research nowadays, so the answer is clearly "yes." When I designed, I would've said "no."

 

[PSE]

I would use the term "Applied Scientist" as I utilize/apply the scientific method in solving the "real world" problems I encounter daily. This in lieu of the pure research definition of science.

I do not do envelope pushing research but I do keep tabs on what is going on as eventually it may affect a product or process that I work with. Reading through research publications also helps keep my mind fresh.

Regards,

 

[Twoballcane]

Did'nt we have a topic on scientist engineer or engineer scientist before?

Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."

 

[NickE]

I am both. Some days its pure research, some days pure applied science.

That said I work in the real world, not academia, therefore I always have a real world goal.

I dont think that the OP's criteria are valid.

Nick
I love materials science!

 

[csd72]

I am an engineer, I know what to do with the scientific knowledge.

csd

 

[btrueblood]

Is scientist a bad word here? I'd bet even Greg meets my definition of scientist: one who uses the scientific principle in his daily work. To heck with peer reviewed journals, what's important is if it works; nature is the best reviewer going, and she's pretty brutal on people with no real experience other than publishing papers.

Science begins with hypotheses, which are then tested (ideally with a control group, and with large samples allowing statistical analyses), which leads to either confirmation of the hypotheses or revision of them.

Anybody working in an ISO 9000 shop is working the scientific method, like it or not.

 

[TheTick]

My dad was both (BSME Hamburg, Ph.D. organic chem McGill). He worked as both at different times.

Generally speaking, scientists are working for the purpose of advancing knowledge. Engineers are not; they are engaged in application of existing knowledge.

Personality issues aside, I wish everyone could have a chance to work for someone like him. His mastery of natural sciences made him an excellent engineer and profilic inventor of things that made a lot of money (for other people!). His lab was where reality reflected "book knowledge".

 

[HgTX]

"Generally speaking, scientists are working for the purpose of advancing knowledge. Engineers are not; they are engaged in application of existing knowledge."

Great, Tick! That nailed my vague sense of the differense between the two.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[csd72]

Although some engineers are involved in research, and some scientists, such as industrial chemists are involved in ongoing processes.

csd

 

[KENAT]

I am not a scientist.

Trust me, lots of them work here and I am not one of them.

Compared to scientists us Engineers are the height or sartorial elegance and expert people people, if you catch my drift.

Some of the Engineers/Scientists here though do blur the distinction.

Then again, to some members definitions I'm not an Engineer either.

Woe is me.


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[GregLocock]

The OP started with a very bad definition of a scientist, which I attempted to correct. An astrologist would have met his definition.

As to advanced research, well, in techniques, yes, we are making things up as we go along. And we are always willing to steal the results that someone else has been working on, and using them for our projects.





Cheers

Greg Locock

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