Science vs. Engineering • Hacker News Board

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#31

Post by smegel » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 11:44 AM UTC

Surely engineering is just about building stuff that works, or "meets requirements".

Is there any kind of engineering for which that is basically not the case?

Science is about understanding the natural world by building and testing hypothesis.

I can think of some grey areas. For example, in the 20th century it was discovered that the harmonic modes of oscillation of large structures, like bridges, was rather important to their structural stability. Once this was well understood, clearly it was the engineers who built better and stronger structures with inbuilt dampening and so forth. But who actually sat down and figured out the math behind structural harmonic response, and showed how it could lead to disaster? A scientist or an engineer? It seems both very sciency and engineery.

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#32

Post by bane » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 11:48 AM UTC

On the crest of the wave-front of any advancements is science, followed by research, followed by development, then engineering.

- Science finds the new things

- Research plays around with these things and susses out repeatable factors

- Development sees if those repeatable factors can be turned into a product

- Engineering builds those products

(- and sales and marketing sells them)

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#33

Post by efaref » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 12:07 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #12

https://xkcd.com/242/

It's missing the engineer frame where he has the box open and the apparatus in pieces.

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#34

Post by efaref » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 12:10 PM UTC

derpderpdrep wrote: post #15

jdiez17 wrote: post #9

The easiest way I found to describe the differences between science and engineering (and I think about this fairly often) is by analogy with learning how to drive a (manual) car. There are a few key skills one needs to master to be able to drive a car through any kind of circuit: from the basics, such as shifting up and down and the appropriate times, to drifting at will. Given enough time and "research", people can…

I don't really know, computer science seems concerned with equipping the student with the best tools to solve a problem, and mastery in the creation of them. Computer engineering concerns itself with similar concepts, but at a lower level of abstraction. It's still not EE, which is lower still. I studied computer/electrical engineering for part of my undergrad, and computer science for my masters. The biggest differe…

"Computer science" courses are mostly misnamed. The research faculties they're located in are usually scientific (in that they concern research into computability and computation), however what undergraduate students mostly learn is the primitive form of engineering that we've gleaned from that science so far.

I have an MEng in Computing, because my alma mater is one of the few that realises the distinction.

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#35

Post by efaref » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 12:12 PM UTC

vlehto wrote: post #22

Science is commonly defined as usage of scientific method. So science is just trying to find truth with the best possible tools. Nothing more and nothing less. I think here is the common and problematic misconception. Scientists are saying "look, we used the best tools" and people are hearing "hey, we found the truth!". But science is not about the destination, it's all about the journey. Engineering lacks such rigid…

> If you invent a new need for people and fill it with a toy, that would be marketing.

Surely marketing is creating markets. You have a thing, and you make people want to buy it, thus creating a market. Marketing.

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#36

Post by efaref » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 12:13 PM UTC

wangii wrote: post #13

science is about 'why', while engineering is about 'how'.

Does that mean mad science is about 'why not'?

:)

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#37

Post by pluma » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 12:14 PM UTC

wangii wrote: post #13

science is about 'why', while engineering is about 'how'.

Science is descriptive, engineering is prescriptive.

More verbosely: Science is about creating knowledge about out how things work, engineering is applying knowledge to make things work.

Engineering is how you build a bridge. Science is how you find out how to tell whether that bridge will hold.

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#38

Post by larrydag » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 12:16 PM UTC

Science = questioning and understanding the natural world

Engineering = applied Science

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#39

Post by pluma » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 12:17 PM UTC

In other words: engineering is applied science. Science is just science.

Re: Science vs. Engineering

#40

Post by mannykannot » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 12:27 PM UTC

FranOntanaya wrote: post #6

"Imagine trying to build a device based on the information that acceleration due to gravity is probably between 9 and 13 m/s^2" Software engineering must be a special case. Half of it is about handling uncertain states and preparing for unknown future uses.

All engineering projects start with unknowns - the specifics of the requirements, and also external constraints such as the geology of proposed dam or bridge sites - but answering them rarely makes any significant addition to the body of scientific knowledge.

In this regard, the practice of software development (as opposed to the state of the art) is mostly distinguished by an aversion to seeking answers to these questions before developing a solution. Software engineering attempts to change this, but in practice, it is often pursued through ad-hoc rules-of-thumb of the sort that craftsmen use, rather than anything equivalent in rigor to physical engineering's foundation in the physical sciences.