From-- http://www.uoguelph.ca/engineering/what-difference-between-science-and-engineering we've:
Generally, Science is the study of the physical world, while Engineering
applies scientific knowledge to design processes, structures or
equipment. Both Engineers and Scientists will have a strong knowledge of
science, mathematics and technology, but Engineering students will
learn to apply these principles to designing creative solutions to
Engineering challenges.
=====================================================================
From--https://helix.northwestern.edu/blog/2013/12/what-difference-between-science-and-engineering by Karl Putz Dec 11, 2013
My
apple didn't fall far from the tree, but it ended up on the wrong side
of the fence. My family is filled with chemists. My mother has a BS in
Chemistry, while my father and stepfather both have PhDs in Chemistry.
My step-grandfather is an emeritus professor of Chemistry at
Northwestern. I, uh, liked physics and math in high school, so I became…
a chemical engineer. Instant black sheep status.
I still sit at the kids' table for Thanksgiving (it's more fun there anyways!). Chemists and chemical engineers remind me of siblings; they're so very similar, but their differences make them fight like cats and dogs at times. This does beg the question: What's the difference between scientists and engineers?
It seems that the way it used to be defined is that scientists did fundamental work that was fairly far removed from an application. For example, maybe they figured out a new way to make a molecule (or a new molecule to make). Yay! Unfortunately, they could only make a gram or two in the lab, which was never terribly relevant to industrial scales (often requiring millions of tons per year). Thus, a chemical engineer would come along and tell the scientists, "It's great that you did that, but we can't scale this process up. Figure out a different way to do it that we can actually use." Thus was born great animosity.
So, envision a line that stretches from fundamental research to applied research. On this line, fundamental research represents really, really basic research, like CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) Higg's Boson search stuff. Applied research is somebody running a machine in a factory that makes products sold to consumers. So, in the past there was some line drawn in the sand between applications and fundamental studies, and engineers stayed on one side and scientists stayed on other (see figure below).
I think a lot of that has changed now, especially in the academic research world. There are many professors in science fields (e.g. chemistry) who spin off companies from their research, and engineering professors who couldn't care less about end-use applications.
In light of this, I've redefined science and engineering (how nice of me). Start with the line from fundamental research to applied research that we drew earlier. But, let's erase the "line in the sand" division between scientists and engineers (see figure below).
So, let's think about somebody at CERN who is trying to fix one of the magnets that accelerates particles. I'd call him an engineer. I'm not sure what his title is, and for me, it doesn't much matter. He's trying to make something happen. On the other side, let's take a look at a researcher working in a plant that makes teddy bears. He's studying the fluid mechanics of how the stuffing blows into the body of the bear. He's trying to learn something. I'd call him a scientist.
Through these two examples, I'd say that you can have very applied scientists and very fundamental engineers. So if fundamental and applied no longer define scientists and engineers, how do we define them? I suggest the following method. If a person is asking, "why does this happen?" they are a scientist. Thus, no matter where on the spectrum they stand, they are looking toward fundamental issues. If a person is asking, "How do I make this work?" they are an engineer, and are looking toward the applied end. Therefore, your mindset in doing work determines whether you are a scientist or an engineer, not whether you are applied or fundamental.
For what it's worth, by this definition I'm much more of a scientist than an engineer as I love to understand why things happen, but am not terribly driven by end-use applications.
I still sit at the kids' table for Thanksgiving (it's more fun there anyways!). Chemists and chemical engineers remind me of siblings; they're so very similar, but their differences make them fight like cats and dogs at times. This does beg the question: What's the difference between scientists and engineers?
It seems that the way it used to be defined is that scientists did fundamental work that was fairly far removed from an application. For example, maybe they figured out a new way to make a molecule (or a new molecule to make). Yay! Unfortunately, they could only make a gram or two in the lab, which was never terribly relevant to industrial scales (often requiring millions of tons per year). Thus, a chemical engineer would come along and tell the scientists, "It's great that you did that, but we can't scale this process up. Figure out a different way to do it that we can actually use." Thus was born great animosity.
So, envision a line that stretches from fundamental research to applied research. On this line, fundamental research represents really, really basic research, like CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) Higg's Boson search stuff. Applied research is somebody running a machine in a factory that makes products sold to consumers. So, in the past there was some line drawn in the sand between applications and fundamental studies, and engineers stayed on one side and scientists stayed on other (see figure below).
I think a lot of that has changed now, especially in the academic research world. There are many professors in science fields (e.g. chemistry) who spin off companies from their research, and engineering professors who couldn't care less about end-use applications.
In light of this, I've redefined science and engineering (how nice of me). Start with the line from fundamental research to applied research that we drew earlier. But, let's erase the "line in the sand" division between scientists and engineers (see figure below).
So, let's think about somebody at CERN who is trying to fix one of the magnets that accelerates particles. I'd call him an engineer. I'm not sure what his title is, and for me, it doesn't much matter. He's trying to make something happen. On the other side, let's take a look at a researcher working in a plant that makes teddy bears. He's studying the fluid mechanics of how the stuffing blows into the body of the bear. He's trying to learn something. I'd call him a scientist.
Through these two examples, I'd say that you can have very applied scientists and very fundamental engineers. So if fundamental and applied no longer define scientists and engineers, how do we define them? I suggest the following method. If a person is asking, "why does this happen?" they are a scientist. Thus, no matter where on the spectrum they stand, they are looking toward fundamental issues. If a person is asking, "How do I make this work?" they are an engineer, and are looking toward the applied end. Therefore, your mindset in doing work determines whether you are a scientist or an engineer, not whether you are applied or fundamental.
For what it's worth, by this definition I'm much more of a scientist than an engineer as I love to understand why things happen, but am not terribly driven by end-use applications.
===================================================================
From--http://www.engineeryourcareer.org.au/?page_id=123
Science vs Engineering?
Science is concerned with understanding fundamental laws of nature and the behaviour of materials and living things.
Engineering involves the application of science and technology to create useful products and services for the whole community, within economic, environmental and resource constraints.
Scientists discover different ways to generate and use electricity.
Engineers develop principles into practical components used to build power stations and enable the users of electricity to improve the quality of people’s lives.
A scientist may investigate the basic properties of various rock and soil types.
An engineer uses this information to derive engineering properties that are needed to design structures (such as building foundations, retaining walls and tunnels) and to examine the stability of natural and man-made slopes (such as those in dams).
If you are interested in finding out the differences between science and engineering careers in the same field, for example, research, find out more information: If you are interested in science and engineering.
Engineering involves the application of science and technology to create useful products and services for the whole community, within economic, environmental and resource constraints.
Scientists discover different ways to generate and use electricity.
Engineers develop principles into practical components used to build power stations and enable the users of electricity to improve the quality of people’s lives.
A scientist may investigate the basic properties of various rock and soil types.
An engineer uses this information to derive engineering properties that are needed to design structures (such as building foundations, retaining walls and tunnels) and to examine the stability of natural and man-made slopes (such as those in dams).
If you are interested in finding out the differences between science and engineering careers in the same field, for example, research, find out more information: If you are interested in science and engineering.
=================================================================
From--http://chemistry.about.com/u/ua/educationemployment/engineervsscientist.htm
From the article: What Is the Difference Between a Scientist and an Engineer?
Some
people say there is no difference between a scientist and an engineer,
while other people think the two careers are totally separate from each
other. Scientists and engineers typically have strong opinions about
what they do, which makes sense, since it involves discovering,
inventing, and improving pretty much everything, right? How would you
describe the difference between a scientist and an engineer?
The Difference
- Scientists are the ones who create the theories, engineers are the ones who implement them. They compliment each other, and often work together, the scientists telling the engineers what to make and the engineers telling the scientists the constraints that said thing to be made doesn't meet. They are indeed different, but they work very close together.
- —Guest The Walker
Not VS, but AND
- Scientists ask what happens and why in the natural world, while engineers use the answers scientists find to create new inventions and ideas not in the natural world. Both are equally important, as without scientists engineers would not create, and without engineers the research scientists do would be wasted. They go hand in hand.
- —Guest ashley
It is not VS but AND
- There is hardly any difference between the two. In the end it is all mathematics and physics.
- —Guest Logical
Science vs Engineering
- Science is about knowledge and engineering about invention.
- —Guest Aburo Leusttas
Computer Scientist & Software Engineer
- Science is a lot of high level theory and engineering is implementation and optimization. Often a Computer Scientist will come up with a plan that a Soft Engineer have to modify because the theory is not realistic enough to be in production. Engineers deal with math, efficiency and optimization while Scientist deal with "what is possible". A Scientist would be happy spending a million dollar creating a trinket worth 10 dollars as long as it's good science. An engineer don't have that luxury.
- —Guest Ying
Can you tell I do English Lit?
- Engineering is, in a way, more of a science than science itself is. There is something integrally artistic about searching for knowledge simply for knowledge's sake, as a scientist does, and something slightly less so about the functional, practical, minimalist themes behind most engineering. Science is more romantic, in a way, a never-ending search, engineering limited to goals, profit margins and physical means.
- —Guest Michael
Scientist View
- I am a scientist who works daily with engineers. I'm generally treated as one of them and often perform the same duties. The main difference is that a scientist focuses on the unknown while the engineer focuses on the "known". We actually complement well when the engineers can overcome their ego.
- —Guest Nate
they are the same
- i think there is no difference between a scientist and an engineer because both work for nature and humanity
- —Guest aqeel
Scientist vs Engineer
- As we can see from the list of the Noble Prize in Physics, we can already tell who inhabits that area. Scientists are the ones who starts the process, and their work are sometimes theoretical in manner, but really exciting both mathematically and mystically. Engineers doesn't really need to go that far to serve their purpose. I seldomly see an engineer who knows the strong force.
- —Guest muon
THE Difference
- Engineers trained for Using tools, where Scientists are trained for Making them. Engineers are Hard Workers, Where Scientists are free Workers. Engineers Spend most of there time to looking at a solution where Scientist spend their time looking at the Problem. Engineers always treats the decease where scientist treats the root of the deceased. Engineers are narrow minded and scientist are broad minded.
- —Guest Supun
They are cousines !
- Scientists develop theories and work to verify them, Engineers search in these theories to "optimize" things in real life. For instance, scientist may research and find out some properties of a material, engineers look for how to utilize these properties in optimal manner while considering efficiency, cost, and other aspects of interests. There is an overlap between science and engineering. In fact, you may find an Engineer who "develop theories" and a Scientists who "optimize".
- —Guest Motasem
Science Vs. Engineering
- Scientists, Engineers (and yes, managers) are all after the same thing! Science explores the phenomena of nature and attempts to find the laws that govern them; Engeering attempts to use the laws of nature (already known) to replicate them in situations leading to usable end results; Management provides the logical frame work (What and why -- the strategy and when and how [- the operations) for our efforts through science and engineering! Hence every professional is a scientist, engineer and manager (with different proportions, depending on their job assignment or career choice). Then what is technology? --- Technology is an integrated outcome of sceince, engineering and management pertaining to the phenomena of choice. This Nuclear Technology is the intergation of S/E/M pertaining to nuclear fission or fusion. Automotive technology is a collection of S/E/M efforts pertaining to automobiles and hence include I.C. Engine technology, Steering and Control technology, etc.
- —Guest Dr. K. Subramanian
The Honest Truth
- Scientists get PhDs; Engineers get jobs I guess my response must be between 50 and 1000 characters so maybe this random sentence will accomplish that.
- —Guest TheWanderer
EveryOne else writing cliches
- Engineers and scientists do the same jobs. Engineers only learn a particular field in great depth. For example, a physicist will know maxwells laws, and basic circuit theory; but an electrical engineer will have studied next to nothing but electrical phenomena for the same time. Engineering also crosses the traditional boundaries of science- chemical engineers study the physics of chemical reactions on large scales. Both jobs are problem solving jobs. Both involve design testing and innovation. Both can be research jobs involving the study of new phenomena
- —Guest Studied both- worked as both
Engineer
- "All engineer are scientist, but all scientist are not engineer"
- —Guest Narendra thapathali
1-15 of 71Next
Scientists & Engineers
=================================================================
From--http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/11/science-and-engineering/
Engineering is far older than science, being perhaps the second oldest profession, dating back at least to the building of the pyramids (Imhotep from the 27th century BCE is the oldest named engineer) and Stonehenge and probably back to when the first club was engineered. Stonehenge is amazing as it was probably built without the documentation that is the hallmark of modern engineering practice. Unfortunately, that means we do not know what the initial requirements[1] were and this has led to much futile speculation as to its purpose.
Science and engineering are sibling disciplines, frequently mentioned together and have much in common. The main similarity is that they both deal with the observable universe and are judged by their ability to make correct predictions regarding its behaviour. For example, that the Higgs boson will be found at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) or that the building will not collapse in an earthquake. Secondarily they use similar techniques, placing high importance on analytic reasoning, to the extent that Asperger’s syndrome is sometimes called the engineer’s disease. The relation between Asperger’s syndrome and engineers or scientists may be an urban myth but it does indicate the relation of extreme analytic thought to both science and engineering. The solution to problems in both relies on the same problem solving skills, analytic thinking and mathematics. Do not let anyone tell you that either does not require a high degree of intellectual activity.
Science and engineering rely on each other. Behind every engineering project is a great deal of science, from the basic understanding of Newtonian mechanics in the building of a bridge to the advanced materials science in the construction of a cell phone. Actually, the cell phone is a good example of all the science needed: it depends on Newtonian mechanics (the construction of the cell phone towers), quantum mechanics (the operation of the transistors), classical electromagnetism i.e. Maxwell’s equations (the propagation of the signal from the tower to the cell phone), materials science (almost all the cell phone itself), and general and special relativity (the GPS timing that is necessary in some cell phone technologies).
Equally, science is beholden to engineering. From simple things like the buildings that house scientific equipment to complicated things like the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Making a building may seem simple but, as I see with the new ARIEL building at TRIUMF, nothing is simple and even something as basic as a laboratory building relies on engineering expertise. The ATLAS detector is another story. Its size and complexity are a marvel of engineering virtuosity. Back to TRIUMF, the IEEE has recognized the TRIUMF cyclotron, commissioned in 1974 and the main driver for much of TRIUMF’s science program, as an Engineering Milestone. Even the slide rule I used back in ancient history as an undergraduate[2] was an engineering achievement.
Despite the close relationship between science and engineering the two are different. The difference can be summarized in this statement: “In engineering you do not start a project unless you know the answer while in science you do not start a project if you know the answer.” Engineering is based on everything being predictable; you do not start building a bridge unless you know you can complete it. In science, the purpose of a project is to answer a question to which the answer is currently unknown. For example, if the properties of the Higgs boson were known, it would not have been necessary to build the LHC. Good engineering practice is based on order but at the center of science is chaos. We are exploring the unknown; great discoveries can come from serendipity. In science, something not working as expected can lead to the next big breakthrough. In engineering, something not working as expected can lead to the bridge collapsing. Advances in science are frequently due to creativity, not following rules.
This difference in perspective leads to very different cultures in the two disciplines. The engineer is much more concerned with process and following procedure. The scientist with following up his most recent hunch—after all, it could lead to a Nobel Prize. Engineering versus science: order versus creative chaos. This is clearly an oversimplification as there is no clean separation between engineering and science, but it is a good indication of the divergence between the two mindsets. Thus, although engineering and science are closely related and indeed intertwined, the two, in their heart of hearts, are very different; engineering uses science in order to build and science uses engineering in order to explore.
Additional posts in this series will appear most Friday afternoons at 3:30 pm Vancouver time. To receive a reminder follow me on Twitter: @musquod.
Tags: Engineering, Order versus creative chaos, Philosophy of science
From--http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/11/science-and-engineering/
Science and Engineering: vive la Différence
This essay was motivated by a question from an engineering colleague. It would be presumptuous to say “friend,” as scientist and engineers are in a state of “friendly” rivalry, however, not to the extent as with arts. I once saw a sign in an engineering department hallway that read: Friends do not let friends study arts. Be that as it may, my colleague’s question was why scientists do not show the same order in all their work as they show in writing papers. That question I will attempt to answer in this essay.Engineering is far older than science, being perhaps the second oldest profession, dating back at least to the building of the pyramids (Imhotep from the 27th century BCE is the oldest named engineer) and Stonehenge and probably back to when the first club was engineered. Stonehenge is amazing as it was probably built without the documentation that is the hallmark of modern engineering practice. Unfortunately, that means we do not know what the initial requirements[1] were and this has led to much futile speculation as to its purpose.
Science and engineering are sibling disciplines, frequently mentioned together and have much in common. The main similarity is that they both deal with the observable universe and are judged by their ability to make correct predictions regarding its behaviour. For example, that the Higgs boson will be found at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) or that the building will not collapse in an earthquake. Secondarily they use similar techniques, placing high importance on analytic reasoning, to the extent that Asperger’s syndrome is sometimes called the engineer’s disease. The relation between Asperger’s syndrome and engineers or scientists may be an urban myth but it does indicate the relation of extreme analytic thought to both science and engineering. The solution to problems in both relies on the same problem solving skills, analytic thinking and mathematics. Do not let anyone tell you that either does not require a high degree of intellectual activity.
Science and engineering rely on each other. Behind every engineering project is a great deal of science, from the basic understanding of Newtonian mechanics in the building of a bridge to the advanced materials science in the construction of a cell phone. Actually, the cell phone is a good example of all the science needed: it depends on Newtonian mechanics (the construction of the cell phone towers), quantum mechanics (the operation of the transistors), classical electromagnetism i.e. Maxwell’s equations (the propagation of the signal from the tower to the cell phone), materials science (almost all the cell phone itself), and general and special relativity (the GPS timing that is necessary in some cell phone technologies).
Equally, science is beholden to engineering. From simple things like the buildings that house scientific equipment to complicated things like the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Making a building may seem simple but, as I see with the new ARIEL building at TRIUMF, nothing is simple and even something as basic as a laboratory building relies on engineering expertise. The ATLAS detector is another story. Its size and complexity are a marvel of engineering virtuosity. Back to TRIUMF, the IEEE has recognized the TRIUMF cyclotron, commissioned in 1974 and the main driver for much of TRIUMF’s science program, as an Engineering Milestone. Even the slide rule I used back in ancient history as an undergraduate[2] was an engineering achievement.
Despite the close relationship between science and engineering the two are different. The difference can be summarized in this statement: “In engineering you do not start a project unless you know the answer while in science you do not start a project if you know the answer.” Engineering is based on everything being predictable; you do not start building a bridge unless you know you can complete it. In science, the purpose of a project is to answer a question to which the answer is currently unknown. For example, if the properties of the Higgs boson were known, it would not have been necessary to build the LHC. Good engineering practice is based on order but at the center of science is chaos. We are exploring the unknown; great discoveries can come from serendipity. In science, something not working as expected can lead to the next big breakthrough. In engineering, something not working as expected can lead to the bridge collapsing. Advances in science are frequently due to creativity, not following rules.
This difference in perspective leads to very different cultures in the two disciplines. The engineer is much more concerned with process and following procedure. The scientist with following up his most recent hunch—after all, it could lead to a Nobel Prize. Engineering versus science: order versus creative chaos. This is clearly an oversimplification as there is no clean separation between engineering and science, but it is a good indication of the divergence between the two mindsets. Thus, although engineering and science are closely related and indeed intertwined, the two, in their heart of hearts, are very different; engineering uses science in order to build and science uses engineering in order to explore.
Additional posts in this series will appear most Friday afternoons at 3:30 pm Vancouver time. To receive a reminder follow me on Twitter: @musquod.
[1] Project management jargon alert: requirements used in technical project management sense.
[2] HP produced the first pocket calculator when I was an undergraduate student.
No comments:
Post a Comment