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.comialvi@...------------------------------
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
Original Message:
Sent: 10-18-2019 11:08
From: Marina D'Souza
Subject: Thinking like an engineer
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
------------------------------