Professional and Career Topics

What does the phrase "thinking like an engineer" mean to you? Is it any different than "thinking like a scientist"? Does an undergraduate degree in engineering adequately prepare a person to "think like an engineer"? Looking for some thoughts about this.

I casually saw this in a tweet from a STEM PhD student and it stuck with me. How do engineers define this phrase? Does this phrase hold any weight?

------------------------------
Marina D'souza S.M.ASCE
President - Drexel University chapter
Philadelphia PA
------------------------------

My response to the difference between engineering and science is summed up in two words: design and explain.

• Engineers seek to design with multiple realistic constraints
• Scientists seek to explain multiple relevant details

My "engineering" is BS in geological engineering and MS in civil-geotechnical (called soil mechanics back then). My science is PhD in geology. I could go on for paragraphs, but I'll leave it here for now.

------------------------------
Jeffrey Keaton
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------

For the sake of discourse, let me argue another point. Scientists, in order to explain phenomena, design experiments within a lot of real life constraints. Wouldn't this then count as engineering?

------------------------------
Marina D'Souza S.M.ASCE
Presdent - Drexel University ASCE chapter
Philadelphia PA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-19-2019 08:09
From: Jeffrey Keaton
Subject: Thinking like an engineer

My response to the difference between engineering and science is summed up in two words: design and explain.

• Engineers seek to design with multiple realistic constraints
• Scientists seek to explain multiple relevant details

My "engineering" is BS in geological engineering and MS in civil-geotechnical (called soil mechanics back then). My science is PhD in geology. I could go on for paragraphs, but I'll leave it here for now.

------------------------------
Jeffrey Keaton
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------

This paper on philosophy of engineering was written by the members of the ASCE SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee, and may be of interest on this topic:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b414/e260b9eb6264e3bac1dc0ee07d1d02f81980.pdf

The current Chair of our committee, Bill Bulleit, has written specifically on what he describes as the "Engineering Way of Thinking":

https://www.structuremag.org/?p=9296

My personal view is that the engineering way of thinking involves a particular combination of aspects such as grounding in natural science and engineering science, qualitative and quantitative modeling and analysis, attention to detail while also keeping the big picture in mind, creativity and optimization in design, aesthetic sense, environmental and sustainability considerations, working in teams, and judgment based on experience.  None of these aspects is unique to engineering (many of them also apply to science, medicine, law, architecture, etc.), but the way they're combined is arguably unique to engineering.

------------------------------
Irfan A. Alvi, P.E., M.ASCE
President & Chief Engineer
Alvi Associates, Inc.
Towson, Maryland
www.alviassociates.com
ialvi@...
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-19-2019 10:07
From: Marina D'Souza
Subject: Thinking like an engineer

For the sake of discourse, let me argue another point. Scientists, in order to explain phenomena, design experiments within a lot of real life constraints. Wouldn't this then count as engineering?

------------------------------
Marina D'Souza S.M.ASCE
Presdent - Drexel University ASCE chapter
Philadelphia PA
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 10-19-2019 08:09
From: Jeffrey Keaton
Subject: Thinking like an engineer

My response to the difference between engineering and science is summed up in two words: design and explain.

• Engineers seek to design with multiple realistic constraints
• Scientists seek to explain multiple relevant details

My "engineering" is BS in geological engineering and MS in civil-geotechnical (called soil mechanics back then). My science is PhD in geology. I could go on for paragraphs, but I'll leave it here for now.

------------------------------
Jeffrey Keaton
Los Angeles CA

To me an engineer is a problem solver. We are given projects all of which have obstacles to overcome before they can come to fruition.  The question we try to answer is "how".  Not that scientists don't also solve problems, but their emphasis is more to answer the question "why".

------------------------------
Bevin Beaudet P.E., M.ASCE
President/Owner
Bevin A. Beaudet, P.E., LLC.
West Palm Beach FL
------------------------------

I wrote a series of articles for STRUCTURE magazine on "The Logic of Ingenuity" that might be of interest.

Part 1 - Engineering Design - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10373
Part 2 - Engineering Analysis - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10490
Part 3 - Engineering Reasoning - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10592
Part 4 - Beyond Engineering - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107

Rather than problem-solvers, I primarily consider engineers to be decision-makers.  Accordingly, I contrast science as an especially systematic way of knowing with engineering as an especially systematic way of willing.

Engineering as Willing - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=4927

My various articles over the years on this and similar topics, which eventually came to focus on a virtue-based approach to engineering ethics, are listed and linked at http://www.virtuousengineers.org/.

------------------------------
Jon A. Schmidt P.E., M.ASCE
Burns & McDonnell
Kansas City, MO
jschmid@...
------------------------------

I believe the 'odd man out' in these comparisons is often science. 

Most careers, including engineering, architecture, medicine, law, accounting, auto repair, farming, business management, etc. have a practical orientation and involve problem-solving, decision-making, etc. 

Science is somewhat unique in aiming to satisfy our curiosity and advance our knowledge (i.e., improve our models), without requiring that there be a practical value in doing so.  However, to get research funding, potential practical applications of proposed scientific research are sometimes noted, and sometimes 'applied science' has considerable overlap with engineering.

------------------------------
Irfan A. Alvi, P.E., M.ASCE
President & Chief Engineer
Alvi Associates, Inc.
Towson, Maryland
www.alviassociates.com
ialvi@...
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2019 10:40
From: Jon Schmidt
Subject: Thinking like an engineer

I wrote a series of articles for STRUCTURE magazine on "The Logic of Ingenuity" that might be of interest.

Part 1 - Engineering Design - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10373
Part 2 - Engineering Analysis - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10490
Part 3 - Engineering Reasoning - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10592
Part 4 - Beyond Engineering - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107

Rather than problem-solvers, I primarily consider engineers to be decision-makers.  Accordingly, I contrast science as an especially systematic way of knowing with engineering as an especially systematic way of willing.

Engineering as Willing - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=4927

My various articles over the years on this and similar topics, which eventually came to focus on a virtue-based approach to engineering ethics, are listed and linked at http://www.virtuousengineers.org/.

------------------------------
Jon A. Schmidt P.E., M.ASCE
Burns & McDonnell
Kansas City, MO
<maskemail>jschmid@...</maskemail>
------------------------------

A good summary of my opinion about thinking like an engineer are 4 columns of mine from STRUCTURE magazine.

The Engineering Way of Thinking: The Idea - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=9296
The Engineering Way of Thinking: The Future - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=9385
The Engineering Way of Thinking: An Analysis - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=9480
The Engineering Way of Thinking: Adaptation - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=9604

I would agree with Jon Schmidt that engineers are decision-makers, but I would add that they must make the decisions under uncertainties of various sorts, sometimes under significant uncertainty.  The engineering way of thinking is much more than problem solving, although it certainly includes problem solving.  In logic terms: problem solving is necessary, but not sufficient for engineering.

------------------------------
William Bulleit P.E., M.ASCE
Professor
Michigan Tech University
Houghton MI
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2019 10:40
From: Jon Schmidt
Subject: Thinking like an engineer

I wrote a series of articles for STRUCTURE magazine on "The Logic of Ingenuity" that might be of interest.

Part 1 - Engineering Design - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10373
Part 2 - Engineering Analysis - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10490
Part 3 - Engineering Reasoning - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10592
Part 4 - Beyond Engineering - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107

Rather than problem-solvers, I primarily consider engineers to be decision-makers.  Accordingly, I contrast science as an especially systematic way of knowing with engineering as an especially systematic way of willing.

Engineering as Willing - https://www.structuremag.org/?p=4927

My various articles over the years on this and similar topics, which eventually came to focus on a virtue-based approach to engineering ethics, are listed and linked at http://www.virtuousengineers.org/.

------------------------------
Jon A. Schmidt P.E., M.ASCE
Burns & McDonnell
Kansas City, MO
<maskemail>jschmid@...</maskemail>
------------------------------

My chemistry professor in college said he would never understand the apparent competition between pure science and engineering. He knew professors that got a kick out of seeing engineering students do poorly in science classes because it somehow boosted their own egos.

This was his comment that stuck with me (paraphrased):
Without pure sciences, engineers wouldn't have concepts to apply.
Without engineers, no one would be applying the concepts we discover.
One doesn't really have a point without the other, so why not work better together?


In this context, I would say that "thinking like an engineer" is thinking in order to apply a solution. "Thinking like a scientist" would be thinking in order to discover what is already true.
For example, someone studying hydraulics and hydrology from a scientific standpoint will run experiments to analyze how erosion occurs in a stream and what variables contribute. Someone applying that knowledge from an engineering standpoint would be coming up with solutions to an erosion problem in a stream. For instance, if the scientist found that side slope and velocity made the biggest impact, the engineer's solution would start with how to control or modify those conditions in the field.

There are jobs in which someone oscillates between thinking like a scientist and thinking like an engineer. I would say professors engaged in research are a good example of this concept. 

I believe that undergraduate degrees do teach the fundamentals of thinking like an engineer. Design courses like steel structures require students to look at codes and find a solution that is practical. Two students may come up with different but equally correct answers; one may use bolts while the other uses welds. Any course with a design project teaches you to take the scientific knowledge you have gained and apply it to find a design solution.

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI, A.M.ASCE
Engineer Intern
Tulsa OK
------------------------------

I generally agree with Heidi's line of thinking, but offer the following thoughts:

- Engineering has been practiced for millennia, since long before modern science started to develop about four centuries ago.  Much engineering can be done without science, though most modern engineering does rely on modern science.

- Engineering has developed technology (e.g., testing equipment) which has helped science progress, so the influence of engineering and science goes in both directions.

- ​People other than engineers can apply scientific knowledge (e.g., physicians, forensic scientists, architects, weather forecasters, and historians).

- Engineering has its own 'engineering science', and the models developed in engineering science tend to have a more practical orientation as compared to the more truth-seeking models developed by natural scientists.

------------------------------
Irfan A. Alvi, P.E., M.ASCE
President & Chief Engineer
Alvi Associates, Inc.
Towson, Maryland
www.alviassociates.com
ialvi@...
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-22-2019 10:44
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Thinking like an engineer

My chemistry professor in college said he would never understand the apparent competition between pure science and engineering. He knew professors that got a kick out of seeing engineering students do poorly in science classes because it somehow boosted their own egos.

This was his comment that stuck with me (paraphrased):
Without pure sciences, engineers wouldn't have concepts to apply.
Without engineers, no one would be applying the concepts we discover.
One doesn't really have a point without the other, so why not work better together?


In this context, I would say that "thinking like an engineer" is thinking in order to apply a solution. "Thinking like a scientist" would be thinking in order to discover what is already true.
For example, someone studying hydraulics and hydrology from a scientific standpoint will run experiments to analyze how erosion occurs in a stream and what variables contribute. Someone applying that knowledge from an engineering standpoint would be coming up with solutions to an erosion problem in a stream. For instance, if the scientist found that side slope and velocity made the biggest impact, the engineer's solution would start with how to control or modify those conditions in the field.

There are jobs in which someone oscillates between thinking like a scientist and thinking like an engineer. I would say professors engaged in research are a good example of this concept.

I believe that undergraduate degrees do teach the fundamentals of thinking like an engineer. Design courses like steel structures require students to look at codes and find a solution that is practical. Two students may come up with different but equally correct answers; one may use bolts while the other uses welds. Any course with a design project teaches you to take the scientific knowledge you have gained and apply it to find a design solution.

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI, A.M.ASCE
Engineer Intern
Tulsa OK
------------------------------

I don't have more to add beyond what my Engineering Philosophy Committee colleagues Irfan, Jon, and Bill have already posted. I do want to encourage anybody who is interested in delving into questions like these to consider participating with our committee (https://www.asce.org/templates/membership-communities-committee-detail.aspx?committeeid=000009123389). Bill is our chair and I'm the vice chair. If you're interested, reply to us privately for more information.

------------------------------
Tonatiuh Rodriguez-Nikl Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Cal State LA, Department of Civil Engineering
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 10-22-2019 16:17
From: Irfan Alvi
Subject: Thinking like an engineer

I generally agree with Heidi's line of thinking, but offer the following thoughts:

- Engineering has been practiced for millennia, since long before modern science started to develop about four centuries ago.

- Engineering has developed technology (e.g., testing equipment) which has helped science progress, so the influence of engineering and science goes in both directions.

- ​People other than engineers can apply scientific knowledge (e.g., physicians, forensic scientists, architects, and historians).

- Engineering has its own 'engineering science', and the models developed in engineering science tend to have a more practical orientation as compared to the more truth-seeking models developed by natural scientists.

------------------------------
Irfan A. Alvi, P.E., M.ASCE
President & Chief Engineer
Alvi Associates, Inc.
Towson, Maryland
www.alviassociates.com
<maskemail>ialvi@...</maskemail>
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 10-22-2019 10:44
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Thinking like an engineer

My chemistry professor in college said he would never understand the apparent competition between pure science and engineering. He knew professors that got a kick out of seeing engineering students do poorly in science classes because it somehow boosted their own egos.

This was his comment that stuck with me (paraphrased):
Without pure sciences, engineers wouldn't have concepts to apply.
Without engineers, no one would be applying the concepts we discover.
One doesn't really have a point without the other, so why not work better together?


In this context, I would say that "thinking like an engineer" is thinking in order to apply a solution. "Thinking like a scientist" would be thinking in order to discover what is already true.
For example, someone studying hydraulics and hydrology from a scientific standpoint will run experiments to analyze how erosion occurs in a stream and what variables contribute. Someone applying that knowledge from an engineering standpoint would be coming up with solutions to an erosion problem in a stream. For instance, if the scientist found that side slope and velocity made the biggest impact, the engineer's solution would start with how to control or modify those conditions in the field.

There are jobs in which someone oscillates between thinking like a scientist and thinking like an engineer. I would say professors engaged in research are a good example of this concept.

I believe that undergraduate degrees do teach the fundamentals of thinking like an engineer. Design courses like steel structures require students to look at codes and find a solution that is practical. Two students may come up with different but equally correct answers; one may use bolts while the other uses welds. Any course with a design project teaches you to take the scientific knowledge you have gained and apply it to find a design solution.

------------------------------
Heidi Wallace EI, A.M.ASCE
Engineer Intern
Tulsa OK