How are classified the fields of science ‘from fundamental and applied ones’. And how are classified the engineering fields. Are science and engineering two dissimilar notions?
@Fairouz, good question! I like how contributors explained it. Since I do a lot of applied knowledge in industry, it may be said that an engineering is applied science, and not so far from science!
I found a definition that follows:“Engineering is the development of cost-effective solutions to practical problems, through the application of scientific knowledge” - link bellow!
I have noticed in some contributions into some R.G threads, that some people consider engineering field not a science. Is there any ambiguity into concepts or formalisms of these notions.
What do you think about the following description scientists vs engineers :
"Engineering is quite different from science. Scientists try to understand nature. Engineers try to make things that do not exist in nature. Engineers stress invention. To embody an invention the engineer must put his idea in concrete terms, and design something that people can use. That something can be a device, a gadget, a material, a method, a computing program, an innovative experiment, a new solution to a problem, or an improvement on what is existing. Since a design has to be concrete, it must have its geometry, dimensions, and characteristic numbers. Almost all engineers working on new designs find that they do not have all the needed information. Most often, they are limited by insufficient scientific knowledge. Thus they study mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and mechanics. Often they have to add to the sciences relevant to their profession. Thus engineering sciences are born."
Yuan-Cheng ("Bert") Fung, Y.C. Fung and P. Tong, Classical and Computational Solid Mechanics (2001), 1.
source: http://anengineersaspect.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/quotations-for-engine
I practice Chemical and Petroleum Engineering for 50+ years. Some projects belong to Engineering, other to Science, like Physical Chemistry or Fluid Mechanics. But most of projects within my experience were the balanced mix of Science and Engineering.
Yes Alex, but if each science is closed to its field, and each engineering field needs may be dissimilar knowledge from many science fields; how could be classified engineering science from fundamental science, could it be lacking from scientific knowledge development when faced to the well established hard sciences ?
There is a clearcut distinction between science and engineering. That distinction is based on the fact that engineers design functional systems, whereas scientists model the structure and workings of natural systems.
A and H - Bombs are not natural systems, but their development was lead by Scientists, Engineers were just helpers. Newton invented and built first telescope - reflector, but no one rate Newton as an Engineer. It does not mean that Science is above Engineering. Inventor of the wheel did not know difference between these fields. And Edisson is as Great in Engineering, as Newton is in Sciense.
Alexander,
Actually, a bomb is an example of an engineering system.
To clarify the situation and expand on what you have written, here are a couple of observations:
Engineer: designer of functional systems. It is possible for an engineering to have training as a scientist, especially an experiment-oriented scientist. In that case, it is possible for the engineer to model the structure and workings of a natural system such as atomic fission. Bayer (Kodak) is an example of an engineer who used his knowledge of optics to invent an array of optical sensors with some sensors sensitive to red wavelength, some sensors sensitive to green, and the remaining sensors sensitive to blue. The Bayer filter became the backbone for one of the first digital cameras.
Scientist: modeller of the structure and workings of a natural system. It is possible for a scientist to have training as an engineer. In that case, it is possible for a scientist to design the structure of a functional system, inspired by a knowledge of science. Newton was mainly self-taught in optics and he used his knowledge of optics to design a telescope. The first book on optics was written by Euclid.
Alexander,
I have just now corrected my previous post in keeping with what I just wrote in response to your interesting post.
For more about the Bayer filter, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
See also the basic model for a Bayer sensor array in the attached image.
Alexander,
There is a problem with the image in the previous post. So I have attached the .png file containing the image for this post.
Science is understanding of the physical world; chemistry, matter at the molecular, biology living matter and its molecular counterparts, and physics the interactions between matter. Engineering is applied scientific discipline for utilizing these fundamental principles in designing of new technologies and structures.
My view is:
*** SCIENCE: Thinking, modeling, formulating physical phenomena ...
*** ENGINEERING: Doing everything above, but, with the additional practical constraints, such as, COST, AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS, PHYSICAL FEASIBILITY, LEGALITIES, GOVERNMENTAL RULES AND REGULATIONS ... and more ...
SCIENTISTS are not saddled by these constraints and can freely invent whatever they want and develop theories ... However, when it comes to actually REALIZING all of these ideas, all of a sudden all of these constraints pop up ... Engineering is the discipline of finding the intersection of SCIENCE and PRACTICAL CONSTRAINTS.
The online World of Science and Technology defines science as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".
Engineering is defined as "the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures".
The word engineering is also used to mean the skilful or artful manipulation of something to achieve a practical objective. Like in an election we would say Mr. X engineered his victory or Real Madrid engineered their only goal during the final 30 seconds of a tie breaker by their masterful play!
When we see the question that Fairouz has posed, I feel that science is like a banyan tree and engineering one of its major branches. The major branch sprouts sub-branches like aerospace, biotech, nano, genetic eng, etc, but all of them maintain an umblical connection to the mother tree. The sub-branches may even grow to be adult trees but the umblical connection cannot be severed. They also have invisible connections to other branches of the tree, not necessarily to only 'physical' branches ! That is perhaps why we see a hardcore physicist talking of social cause in his work and a contemporary philosopher taking to technology for expounding his thought process.
Science and engineering therefore do not appear to be dissimilar notions.
@Fairouz, good question! I like how contributors explained it. Since I do a lot of applied knowledge in industry, it may be said that an engineering is applied science, and not so far from science!
I found a definition that follows:“Engineering is the development of cost-effective solutions to practical problems, through the application of scientific knowledge” - link bellow!
Thank you very much to all contributors. So could we say that the telescope (for example) or any instrument or technology could be the feedback factor to science and then could improve 'or correct' science knowledge?? Is engineering the necessary path to the scientific advance of science??
Engineers are working hard and enthusiastic on behalf of Science.
Vitaly, I like your analogy to the human brain, but, I think it needs a revision . You gave no thinking credit to engineers :) Starting with your analogy , "scientists are like the brain, engineers are like the arms," I would like to revise as follows :)
*** Scientists and engineers are BOTH like the brain (although, they might be different parts of the brain).
*** Both of them think and imagine: For example, an engineer had to think/imagine that a Walkman can be built to fit in your pocket, where, a scientist had to think/imagine that, he is a particle, traveling at the speed of light ...
*** Scientist doesn't have to execute what is thought (or imagined), except, communicate through language (which uses a part of the brain anyway).
*** Engineer has to execute what is thought (or imagined). So, in addition to thinking and imagining, an engineer has to take into account all sensory input and the constraints of the output devices (language, arms, legs) ...
*** According to our Version 2 analogy :) , both engineer and scientist are allowed to think about jumping one meter in the air. However, the divergence happens as follows: Engineer compares the one meter against physical constraints of the arm and legs, and realizes that, MaxJumpDist=0.82, so, one meter jumping is not physically possible. So, the brain (engineer) issues the appropriate neural commands to the arms and legs to jump 0.82 meters. Alternatively, scientist doesn't have to execute what is thought. So, (s)he continues thinking: what if I can jump 3 meters ? how about 10 meters ? how about if I can touch the moon ?
*** When engineer realizes that, the body actually jumped 0.85 meter, (s)he adjusts the parameter MaxJumpDist=0.85 and can use this revised parameter later. In the end, the engineer EXECUTED what is thought. Scientist, on the other hand, can invent some theory due to this unbounded thinking (which, in turn, might help the engineer with executing something later).
Do you like this Version2 of your theory better :)
Yes Tolga, both scientists and engineers use their brains and imagine scientific solutions. I think that Vitaly's description of brain and hands is a metaphor for explaining that engineering is more close to reality, as hands couldn't work by their selves without connection to the brain. So engineers imagine tools and process/fabricate them throughout scientific knowledge with precision, pragmatism and open/continue optimization. May be during the design of the tool they could face some science theories limits. At this time theorists could be called to adjust the theory or think for new data.
Science gives us the understanding and the limits of our understanding in a formal way.
Engineering shows us the ways to use that understanding and then provides ways to get around the limits of our understanding. Engineers also test the limits.
Both are vital to understanding the world and the universe. Only by testing the limits can we advance.
I consider science and engineering in a broader context. Pure science is one aspect of trying to understand the environment, engineering is its applying partner. But, aren't there other areas of science. which work on a more local level?
Just some ideas to spark the discussion: Social science, pedagogy. and what about computer 'science'? Engineering and technology. Is AI more theory or engineering or technology?
I think it depends on the context, what you consider as STE. I chose the 'term' STE here, because we've been talking about education in science, technology, engineering and math here a lot. Math seems to be clear as a structural basis of describing processes and the like. Pure science is questioning theoretical models (quite often formulated in mathematical terms) by experiments. Technology is using appropriate models to create products on the basis of engineering practices.
As I see it, the original question asks for the relationship of STEM.
Science = study of the physical world. Engineering = applications of science.
The scientist describes what is; the engineer creates what never was.
This is part of an answer I gave much earlier in a different thread about what science is:
Science, at its most basic level, is a search for explanations about the natural world. Scientists seek to understand why the natural world is the way it is, as well as how the natural world works. The aim of science is to find the best possible 'natural' explanations for natural occurrences. Scientists therefore look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations.
The word 'science' comes from the Latin verb 'scio' that means 'to know', the word 'engineeering' (Italian = Ingegneria') comes from the Latin word 'Ingenium' that was a machine that the Ancient Romans used to pick up very heavy rocks for building.
On a general perspective 'ingegnoso' in Italian is someone that finds a very effective WAY to perform a TASK (like 'ingenium' is a very effective tool to pick up heavy loads impossible to take by human or animal force (the consonance between 'engine' and 'engineering' is a very curious but fortuitous contingency, in any case even an engine is a very effective way to solve transportation problems).
The science thus has to do with the knowledge OF REALITY WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC NECESSITY TO CHANGE IT ACCORDINGLY TO A TASK...on the contrary engineering has to do with the NEED TO CHANGE REALITY TO PERFORM A TASK WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC NECESSITY TO KNOW IT (by the way Romans built incredibly big and complex buildings without knowing anything of statics and without doing any calculus).
The best definition of science comes from St.Thomas the Aquinas 'Adaequatio intellectus et rei' That can be translated into 'Search for superposition between intelligence and reality', but 'Intellectus' means properly 'Reading-inside' and can be perhaps better translated as 'insight' and 'rei' is the genitive case of 'res' that means 'thing'.
Now clearly knowledge helps to act properly to reach a task and this is why science can be very useful to engineering, and acting properly on something helps to know the specific reality I'm working with and this is why sometimes engineering comes first and suggests to science something new (e.g. Wright brothers made their first flight when physicist were convinced it was impossible), other times science comes first (e.g. Maxwell developed the electromagnetic field that was used to build televisions after one century).
The important point is that we must keep the two things separated and do not impose science to be 'translational' (if you do not reach a result that we can sell in tree years I close your lab) neither impose engineering to be scientific (the incredibly fool 'Brain Initiative' to understand brain by pure increase in computational power) , te confusion of the two planes with the nowadays horrible word 'technoscience' is ate the basis of the nowadays failures of both science and engineering..(dramatic cecrease in the newly developed number of drugs, failure of GWAS, failure of biotechnology, ....).
Application & commercialization of Science is Engineering, in my opinion. Science & Engineering are forever united from hence forth. No way out of that. In my opinion, no matter how much wishful thinking! They fuel each other like a "perpetual engine"! Don't try to stop the inevitable.
Possibly, if we encounter the need for producing a prototype novel engineering contrivance , we shall realize that we need to engage an extended part of various disciplines of expertise i.e. [ in short]:
Philosophy[ Concept/ Invention],
Search for similar existing items [what differences new may introduce],
Ethics [ Laws]
Environment Laws]
Preliminary Design [ Laboratories, Equipment],
Laws and Standards applicable [ National and International -where applicable],
Feasibility study [ Economics],
Availability of expertise involved[ Engineering, Science, Mathematics, Environmental, Economics]
Final Design,
Inventory,
Procedures,
Contracts [ if the case requires]
Model,
Testing [Laboratories, Equipment]
[Possible modifications or Redesign]
Prototype,
Testing [ Laboratories, Equipment ]
Certification [ Quality ]
@Ravi, you say: are forever united from hence forth. No way out of that. In my opinion, no matter how much wishful thinking! They fuel each other like a "perpetual engine"! Don't try to stop the inevitable.
This is exactly what I said, it is not a case that you marry someone else, you do not marry yourself, if two things must be 'unite' they must be different, thisd is not wishful thinking, this is pure logic....engineering and in general technology needs the work of someone not having tasks different from the pure knowledge of nature, and viceversa theorists need the work of someone whose main work is pursuing the reaching of a pre-determined task....that's all, any imbalance or idea of 'one way' is like a marriage of only one person....
Alessandro! I guess I agreed with you without even reading your contents. Like minds? These days we have all kinds of possibilities in marriage. Auto-marriage ("marriage of only one person") may be the ultimate solution for the vain. Lol!
Science and Engineering are nearly synonymous today.
Ravi,
In terms of the possible synonymy of science and engineering, it may be good to extend the discussion to what is known as computational science and engineering (CSE). CSE focuses on the development and application of computational models and simulations to solve complex physical problems vehicle crash simulation, genomics, structure stress and finite element analysis, microelectronics, mineral and fossil fuel exploration, interplanetary space exploration, experimental engine simulation (see attached image).
CSE has a strong mathematics component that included linear algebra, digital topology, topology of digital images, proximity space theory, differential geomety (manifolds), and on and on.
For more about CSE, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_Science_and_Engineering
To be synonimous will made poorer both the fields, this is why trying to to put a gene into plants without knowing genes work in networks and that the location in the genome is crucial for the functioning of the system ended up into only four (4) vital efficient transgenic plant species and a total failure of cattle cloning, only insulin (and few other application) of gene transfer technology came out and so forth.. on the other end fundamental science in many aspects is rapidly loosing the contact of reality and we have string theorists that seem to be fascinated to have a theory that cannot be proven by experimental means...as for automarriage I discovered since many years that is much more satisfactory to love another person instead of staying alone . After 25 years of marriage I'm still of this idea and I love to discover how different from me and my wife our daughters are...
As for my work I prefer to work with engineers that with other theoretical scientists like me ! The good thing is that, thanks to technology, we can do both games (purely knowledge based research with no immediate application purposes) as well as very applicative works, more in general I'm very happy that soccer and basketball follow different rules and to use hands is forbidden in soccer (with the only exception of goal keeper) and to use foot is forbidden in basketball...
I would not say "nearly synonymous" but rather "complementary".
Perhaps a good example related to the question of this thread is given by the ongoing Juno mission to Jupiter (see the following attached link).
http://www.spaceflight101.com/juno-mission-design-timeline-trajectories.html
Such a complicated mission clearly illustrates the synergy between the scientists (S) and the engineers (I).
Here, the role of (S) is essentially to answer the question "why ?". In other words, to motivate why it is important to go there and which new knowledge we are going to acquire, etc.
The role of (I) is essentially to answer the question "How ?". Namely, to determine the best way to achieve the task given all the constraints, including the most important one : the cost.
As to the other questions "What, "when" and "where", their answers are often the result of a compromise between what (S) would like to do and what (I) think it is possible to do.
Dear H.E.,
Excellent post! I agree with you. Science and engineering have strengths such that each set of strengths in science (e.g., physical system experimentation and analysis) complements the set of strengths in engineering (e.g., design of mechanical, optical, computer systems, and robotic system).
Engineering is the applying of all known science knowledge for solving a very specific problem. Depending on what kind of problem we distinguish in electrical, mechanical, chemical, financial and so on engineering.
Science stands for the knowledge creation. The Engineers take the knowledge, use it and sometimes expand it, if they have a scientific background and if they are interested to do this.
@H.E. Lehtihet, I do like Your response, just as many of us. Furthermore,I would like to emphasize the multiple feedback between I and S regarding constraints!
Thank you Jim and Ljubomir.
The example I gave (Juno mission) is a big project involving many people. Multiple feedback between scientists and engineers is indeed crucial in this type of project in order to deal with the many existing constraints some of which are quite stringent.
Another interesting example is the case of a small-scale project involving, for example, a single scientist. In that case, the scientist who is running the experiment has to overcome all the problems (scientific as well as engineering problems) either alone or with an external help.
I would like to invite the RG member Ludwig Combrinck to join this discussion. Ludwig is currently preparing a very interesting experiment. I am sure that his feedback will be valuable to this thread.
Thanks for the invitation H.E., I probably have a slightly non-orthodox viewpoint on the differences between fundamental, applied science and engineering. In my own environment at work I cannot afford to differentiate between these 3 topics.
They can of course be split and defined fairly simply, where fundamental science is described by the branches of science which create our knowledge base of the Earth, its environment and the Universe. Typical branches are mathematics, biology, astronomy, physics etc. Applied science feeds of fundamental science and can be seen as engineering, as engineering utilizes the fundamentals of established science to modify or fabricate and create technological devices etc. Therefore engineering is actually just applied science.
So there are actually only 2 topics, fundamental science and applied science.
In my environment, where I am currently involved in the development and construction of a Lunar and Satellite Laser Ranger, and am developing a small optical telescope system to test the General Theory of Relativity during the total solar eclipse of 2015, I cannot split the 2 topics completely as they are intertwined. Firstly, it is essential to realize that in many observational sciences, optical astronomy, radio astronomy, satellite laser ranging, VLBI etc. the scientists are often the engineers, and the engineers are often the scientists. This creates a very necessary free flow of unimpeded theoretical, fundamental and technical engineering type information in a cyclical system with free interaction between these predefined and bracketed categories of fundamental science and applied science (engineering). The boundaries thus becomes fuzzy, and in many cases disappear altogether.
As a quick example, with the development of the Lunar Laser Ranger; I have to do technical designs, write technical software, write telescope control software, write data analysis software (for which a fair amount of fundamental science knowledge is required), write hardware interfacing software, design subsystem components, all of which has as objective to create an integrated system which will be able to deliver sub-cm ranging accuracies, so that fundamental science can be evaluated. In this process, the premise is fundamental science, the target remains fundamental science, and the interventions to get from the one to the other is applied science.
Dear Ludwig,
Thank you for your nice "slightly non-orthodox viewpoint". In fact, that's precisely why I was sure that your contribution would be valuable to the question of this thread.
Being one of your followers, I was aware that you have been involved in a project, which requires accurate measurements and which therefore necessarily deals with both aspects of sciences : fundamental and applied.
I like particularly "the premise is fundamental science, the target remains fundamental science, and the interventions to get from the one to the other is applied science.".
Thanks H.E., I think everyone has their own unique experience with this type of topic, so it is interesting to read how people see this. There seems to be a tendency for less demarcation and synthetic bracketing of science, technology and its applications in general, as people discover that the true universe is in fact not divided into disciplines and synthetic functional sections but actually functions in its totality and in completeness.
Thank you to all of you for your valuable contributions, well I’ll do a brief compilation of different opinions posted here. Alessandro gives us the genesis of the terms science and engineering, both are close to intellectual thinking and knowledge processing. The examples given by Alessandro: “sometimes engineering comes first and suggests to science something new (e.g. Wright brothers made their first flight when physicists were convinced it was impossible), other times science comes first (e.g. Maxwell developed the electromagnetic field that was used to build televisions after one century), denote that science and engineering are the 2 faces of the same piece, both need knowledge to improve each other, Penagiotis adds philosophy and ethics, may be philosophy is the main path to science or engineering knowledge when ethics is their limits. Ravi thinks that engineering is the market value of science, so within market laws how science could be engineered efficiently without knowledge injury?
I like Juan Esteban definition “scientist describes what is; the engineer creates what never was”, I think it is close to knowledge processing approach by each.
Georges says “Science gives us the understanding and the limits of our understanding in a formal way”, do engineering lets us understood things in an informal way?? So how could be established formal “i.e. recognized” limits from the informal ones??
Michael prefers a demarcation between science, technology and engineering on Math basis concept. Thus his question: “Is AI (artificial intelligence) more theory or engineering or technology?” is pertinent.
James gives us the opportunity to see that science and engineering are synonymous through the extent of computational science and engineering (CSE) playing role for nature's laws understanding simulation. May be CSE could improve science knowledge through data pattern imaging possibilities and fasten nature laws understanding; when past centuries’ knowledge improvement was only imagination or experimental basis.
Lehtihet thinks that he question remains on philosophical basic view of why and how inquiry matter or subject. When Demetris gives a practical definition on solving problem issue and topics, when engineering and Science stands both for the knowledge creation. Lehtihet is thankful for inviting Ludwing to join the discussion. Ludwing experience of both science and engineering practice confirm that the two are connected /interrelated and complementary, Ludwing explains it as ” the scientists are often the engineers, and the engineers are often the scientists. This creates a very necessary free flow of unimpeded theoretical, fundamental and technical engineering type information in a cyclical system with free interaction”. Ludwing concludes his thoughts by “people discover that the true universe is in fact not divided into disciplines and synthetic functional sections but actually functions in its totality and in completeness”. So as developed above by Michael for pedagogy issue do science and engineering must be taught separately as fundamental and applied sciences or multiple feedbacks must be emphasized between I and S as Ljubomir said. In that case what is the best scheme for a unified view??
In my opinion the best scheme for a unified way is 'being conscious' of the goal of what we are doing in practice. When I'm putting my mind on a problem in which the task is clear and potentially affordable I do not need to try and enlarge the perspective on 'fundamentals' : I must find the most direct way and the reaching of the task is the proof I worked well...I am doing engineering (MODE A).
If I do not havea precise task but I'm ust investigating the presence of still unknown regularities of Nature I have the need to go back to fundamenals and to put in perspective any single step of the work but the only task is the internal consistency of my steps, no external task, I'm doing science (MODE B).
While in mode A I can step into problems that implies to shift to mode B or that makes me to feel the need to go to a friend of mine and tell'him ''Oh. my dear I have something for you..'
While in mode B I can step into a problem that implies to shift to mode A or that makes me to feel the need to go to a friend of mine and tell him 'Oh dear, I need your help in solving this point'.
The integration comes to the fact that I'm the same person working in both modes and/or I have friends able to work in the mode I'm not used to work...
Thank you for the question. I think, an engineer is Master after God. Every country must develop so that it won't die. A country will die without progress of own industry. An engineer, a worker, and a scientist are main figures of scientific and technological progress. Future belongs to ecologically clean technologies on the basis of a fund of inexhaustible energy in combination with spatial expansion. But, what is more important? To A.Tarkovsky, "A teacher is an engineer of human souls". "The Prussian schoolmaster won the battle of Sadowa" (Von Moltke), or "The victory of the Prussians over the Austrians was a victory of the Prussian over the Austrian schoolmaster".In other words, national education plays the dominant role in country's progress, because only knowledge can't perfect a human being to the top moral value, when one is ready to sacrifice his life for the sake of idea, for the sake of doing his duty, honor and Motherland. "This object is achieved by up-bringing only...An educator won our battles. It wasn't a scientist" (Moltke)The effect of the Prussian gymnasium education led to creation of basic educational system, allowed Germany to take leading position in science and technological progress in the world, I think, welfare of a state is defined by its attitude to an educator. "The attitude of the government to a teacher is a governmental policy, which testifies either to strength of the government or to its weakness"(attributed to Von Bismarck)
Dear Alessandro, nice shifting between modes A & B; however I think that doing engineering need right thinking for planing the best solution based on fundamentals at first, it couldn't be restricted to an automatism of tasks (known or clear). Engineering is science and also an art, the design of the product, object or project requires a study based strategical organizational scheme, a logical approach, a mathematical (physical, chemical,mechanical, biological, topological,...etc) and/or heuristic solutions, an art design, a simulation, a review and correction/ adjustment of parameters, a financial plan,...etc
May be doing science just for academic purpose or trying to have more knowledge on nature, needs only fundamentals, even this knowledge request, needs also experiments, and any experimental setup needs engineering. So the 2 modes are finally one. May be the help of friends could solve particular questions or when facing curious results. for that purpose also an engineering is required 'i.e an engineering of knowledge'.
Dear Fayrouz science and true art are basically the same thing: both have the goal to make visible the invisible, the same is true for engineering.
But just like exist different form of art and the sense for architecture is not the same sense for painting or sculpture (but clearly did exist persons having iat the same time all these different senses like Bernini or Michelangelo) so what we call science is different from what we call engineering (but both of them are forms of art, given in my opinion art is a much 'general' term having inside (as sub-categories) : music, sculpture, architecture, engineering, science, painting....
In some sense science and engineering are still maintaining the glorious art tradition (link with artisan skills, having a specific message to communicate, didascalic role, knowledge goal, possibility to be understood at different layers of comprehension) that was quasi-completely lost in figurative arts and modern architectures starting from XIX century with the horrible disctum 'Art-for-Art' implying art is useless..to make a long story short a nowadays scientis is much more similar to Giotto than to Pollock...
Doing science for academic purpose is like copying an already present picture, thus is neither art nor science,
Dear Irina, thank you for pointing out the educational role for any country's progress. Any educational scheme based on good knowledge acquisition is the nation support from skills and moral values. Knowledge from fundamental science must be followed by its application for nation's development. Here the role of the engineer is essential, engineers must built roads/bridges/tunnels through very difficult topographical milieus, power stations for energy needs, smart agriculture, new cities and smart architectures, hydraulic dams, industry products and technologies, etc... and also built new knowledge from knowledge engineering. So engineering education promotion is capital for any country's development, unless any country will stop functioning.
Hi Alessandro, may be some science and some art are based on imagination. If imagination in science is based on mathematics and logic, and in art is based on mental pictures design. However making visible these mental products needs tools, proofs and plans; this is an engineering. Art is beauty, and beauty is a way of thinking and a virtue, this leads to the splendor of better knowledge understanding and processing and science progress. Science 'experimental or imaginative' and engineering 'pragmatic science' couldn't be separated, they must work on a feedback basis, each correct or improve the other. They are on the same scientific knowledge basis that they should improve.
@Issam, you say "Scientists look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations." could you precise your thoughts please. Universe and earth are nature, scientists try understanding their functioning and the laws driving them. Engineers use these understanding (ie this knowledge) to create tools, products and new knowledge for understanding or proving some nature's knowledge. I don't think that engineering is a supernatural issue!!! or do you link engineering creation with the universe creation philosophy ?
Science means and Engineering stands for is on the same fundamentals... Science is RAW and many a time has theories, theorems, postulates and experiments... whereas Engineering is PROVEN APPLICATIONS of Science to the benefit of MANKIND; it has innovations and improvisations following after it...
Thank you @Krishnan for your " Engineering is PROVEN APPLICATIONS of Science to the benefit of MANKIND".
Thank you @Irina for your "Every country must develop so that it won't die. A country will die without progress of own industry. An engineer, a worker, and a scientist are main figures of scientific and technological progress."
Thank you @James, @Lehtiet, and .... all of you for your valuable thoughts.
May be the unnecessary 'egocentric' fight between theorists and applied scientists is now from the past. We are all scientists, we are all complementary and we need to work together. Perhaps in past centuries science has expanded from great theoreticians, however nowadays technological advance added a plus in new findings and science knowledge progress thanks to the science engineering. Without engineering, theories alone couldn't benefit mankind as well as science in its self.
So which best framework could let science and engineering supportive and not dissimilar in career, in academic and research support and in the philosophy(may be new) which holds each other?
Waiting for valuable comments of all of you.
Only by pushing the limits do engineers find that there is more to be discovered. Both have to work hand in hand to make discoveries realities for the masses.
Fairouz,
I could only hope that you are correct about the "egocentric" fight. My hope is that the educational institutions will also see that this push against change is what holds us back and that these fights would also be a thing of the past.
My dear colleagues, maybe this description is good one about the issue!
Ljubomir,
Perhaps you will agree that there is box missing at the top of the flow graph for your post, namely, a box containing the word Mathematics before the box containing the word Science.
Agree with you George "pushing the limits do engineers find that there is more to be discovered". May be engineers in their attempt to build models, tools or methods, and experimenting them in natural milieu, could face some lack or limits in theories, even if their models operate correctly.
Applying science means pushing the limits of scientific knowledge for better mastering nature's laws. For that issue both theoreticians and engineers must work hand in hand
I think that there is an egocentric fight; we have sensed it many times in different discussions(into symposiums or congresses) or e-discussions, that some theoreticians think that all science is built from the work of theoreticians, the others are only applicants of their knowledge. I think this is an accepted wisdom derived from 'ecoles de pensees' or science philosophy from past belief, since technology is relatively a new concept in the history of science. And many educational institutions work under this philosophy. So sure that educational institutions must reconsider their framework of the tree of knowledge following more pragmatism.
I think that James do not agree completely with Ljubomir's graph. So is science built on mathematics truth then laws are discovered, or do nature's laws create mathematics truth?? My opinion is that they are on the same scale. Mathematicians and physicists operate on same reasoning from nature's laws and truth proofing; This is a small fight derived from 'ecoles de pensees'!! it remembers me an anecdote from the mathematics baccalaureate degree where mathematics was with coefficient 8 and physics the coefficient 7 that I have never understand why!!
Fairouz,
As we push the limits of the understanding new and better ways are theorized and either new limits placed or new laws are discovered. The consequence of this is that sometime new math is discovered and we build better models of how to predict the limits.
Both sides of this balance are equally as important and both the theorist and the practitioner are responsible for advancing the science.
The fact of the matter is that we need both if we want to advance as fast as we are able.
The theorist is just as likely to be wrong and fallow the wrong path for decades until someone proves it wrong. This is what happens when no one tests the theory or when someone tests the theory but we think we like it better than what the test results indicate and we ignore the results.
The experimentalist is likely to not see the trees for the forest that sets in front of them maybe even for decades until someone shows them where it applies to much more than at first thought.
We only move forward if both sides work together and respect each others work as valid and valuable even if wrong.
Dear Professor Ljubomir Jacić
As I know that:-
Knowledge of Science leads towards the advancement of modern technology and we are able to do Engineering tasks.
I agree with you @Georges that "both the theorist and the practitioner are responsible for advancing the science" and "The consequence of this is that sometime new math is discovered and we build better models of how to predict their limits.". So " they must work together and respect each others work as valid and valuable even if wrong."
You resume very well the advance of science knowledge purpose. Even it is wrong it is always a knowledge that shows us the wrong path to not follow. Science has evolved through ages through theories and experiments, each correct each side of each. Science do not need ego scheme or ecole de pensees, science is built on logical reasoning philosophy and logic not only on ecoles de pensees even if belonging to great thinkers. May be some ecoles de pensees have invalidation dates!!
Science refers to the human accumulated efforts to understand what is around us better, whereas engineering refers to the work of designing and creating large structures or new products or systems by using scientific methods.
Science makes thought conform to existence by deriving ideas from experiments and observation whereas engineering makes world conform to thought through making things to come into existence from ideas. In science, knowledge is primarily used to generate more knowledge where as engineering makes use of knowledge to design, produce and operate objects. Science and engineering though work with different approach; are complementary to each other.
Thank you Yogesh, sure science and engineering are both sciences that work with different approaches. Both are useful for knowledge evolution and are complementary to each other. However some schools think that engineering science as applied science couldn't be part of knowledge evolution as fundamental science could. Is it true that theoretical science is more powerful for research knowledge development than applied science
Fairouz,
My thought is that the theory must be there to help build the other. Some times we have to step outside the practical box that we build for ourselves in the engineering world and speculate " What If" and this is called theory. It is also called the first step in science. There is no sense in having science if there is not the ability to us that science some day. You may not use it for hundreds of years but then some theory comes along and someone finds a use for the information and then the interplay between science, engineering, and theory become reality. This is a big web that people need to understand. It is vital to have all aspects of this in play at the same time. There is no one side of this story that is more important than the other. As someone that works on all sides of this in my research I see at different times every side of this.
In my chemistry, I work with organics in creating products for use in the real world.
At times I find anomalies in the known science. These anomalies lead me to speculate what they mean for the science. This then can lead to new theories on what that means. As I work towards better products with a different look at the science. It is a grand circle that allows me to continue working while adding to the knowledge base of the science.
Dear Fairouz
Your question reminds me of a question asked by Merab Zukhbaia much earlier here on RG:
"What is a major difference among science, engineering and technology?
Is engineering a science itself?"
The top two answers were:
1-"Technology: Fire can be used to cook food.
Science: Burning wood produces heat, water, and carbon dioxide. Heat denatures proteins in food.
Engineering: Building a fireplace and chimney makes it easier to cook with fire without filling the room with smoke."
By Michael Dickman (149 up votes! and 3 down votes)
and
2-"Science asks the question, why? Engineering asks the question, why not? Technology tries to answer the question, how?"
By Robert Laurence Baber (117 up votes and 17 down votes).
I have not seen a single answer anywhere on RG that has attracted anything near those numbers of up votes!
The votes are correct as of now, 1 July 2014.
Science is KNOWLEDGE and
Engineering is PRACTICE
Science and Engineering dont go separate, but have clear distinction...
@Krishnan: I ´ll try to understand. The scientist knows, the engineer has no knowledge. The latter doesn´t understand his job. Hm?
Or the scientist has no practice, the engineer has. The scientist always is the ingenuous beginner. Hm?
Your distinction needs some revision.
Science and engineering are fundamentally different. The purpose of science is to advance our understanding and knowledge of how the universe works. Science therefore is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains. Engineering on the other hand is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Engineering therefore attempts to utilize (but not necessarily need-see below) science to design machines, devises, equipments, structures for human use to protect, sustain and improve our living standards.
Engineering is not science, they both have two separate objectives. Consider the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico back in 2010. Poor engineering decisions allowed gas to escape from a well in deep water, which in turn caused a fatal explosion. No one blamed it on science, it was engineering that finally capped the well.
A fundamental difference between engineering and science is that engineering needn't necessarily depends on science. Even totally without science there would still be engineering. Throughout history, a full scientific understanding has been neither necessary nor sufficient for great technological advances. let me give you a notable example: the era of the steam engine was well into its second century before a fully formed science of thermodynamics had been developed. One could go even further than this by noting that science can sometimes impede (engineering) progress. For example, had Marconi believed his physicist contemporaries, he would have "known" that wireless telegraphy signals could not be sent across the ocean, around Earth's curvature.
Knowledge is the base of all understanding. Every aspect of the Engineer, Researcher, Scientist, Theorist, Technician, and Installer use parts of this base of knowledge. Some apply, some calculate, some supose, and some build on the information that is the base. All of them should understand the parts that are most important to the work they do, but most do not understand the roles of the others and here in lies the problem. Everyone should have a working understanding of the others word. In society today it is thought that it is too complex to understnad so most do not even try.
We have become so specialized that it is hard to get any thing done in a timely manor. We tend to forget that just a century ago there were only a few things to study for a PhD. Today there may be a million or so things you can get a PhD in.
People forget that even people like Albert Einstein only had what we would call an undergraduate degree in Physics. Five years after he graduated with the undergraduate degree he published a 12 page paper that was accepted by Zurich University and he became known as Doctor Einstein. We today think that the only way forward is to seperate the fields into such small sub catigories and sub-sub catigories that we can publish 50 or 100 page papers the issue and that this is knowledge. Most of what can be said about this process of decentailizing the knowledge base is fluff and can be said in a few words.
In order for more people to realize true understanding we need to make our works available in the cut to the bones one paragraph version. No one needs to know Avagadro's number to 30 places to do the work that helps use mix things.
In order for everyone to work together to move foreward we must take the time to bring the knowledge to its base. Everyone can understand Relativity when we talk about its meaning and not about the calculus and differential equations that goe into its equations for calculating a path through space and time.
People solve problems. Math does not solve the problems.
Dear Fairoz
May I suggest you add science, engineering and philosophy of engineering as topics to your question. The philosophy of engineering is an emerging discipline that considers what engineers do and and how their work impacts on society.
Dear Issam, when you said engineering is not science, is like you said that a power plant, a vehicle, a plane , a bridge, etc... are not built on scientific tools and exact calculation !!!! Do you really think that an engineering degree is not based and assessed on scientific approaches, methods and tools . i think it is a joke from you ...
Dear George, thank you for your deep thoughts. Indeed knowledge is the base of all understanding, each specialty of science and technology brings in its core some part of knowledge useful for other disciplines, and for science in general. I agree with you that "In order for everyone to work together to move forward we must take the time to bring the knowledge to its base".
Dear Issam may be the philosophy of engineering could be an emerging discipline which could impact more innovation and innovative ideas to human needs, and could brings some added value to scientific knowledge.
I understand that ,Engineering, Mathematics ,Science Philosophy, etc.etc. are the Gears, essential to each other,driving the Master Clockwork Device of what we could define as the Constructive Tool of Knowledge, which enhances the continuous progress of our civilization.
@Issam and @Fairouz: about engineering--whether it is a science or not.
Based on what Issam has written, one can safely conclude that engineering relies on results from science (and mathematics) to design its systems. In other words, for example, a power system designed by an engineer represents an artifact that is the result of a very refined knowledge of certain areas of both science and mathematics.
I admit that there is a fine line between the design of an engineering system and laboratory experiments designed by a scientist. However, I agree with Issam that engineering is all about rearranging the stuff of the world to make (build) new things.
Thank you James for agreeing and explaining further. I hope dear Fairouz can now see that what I said was not a 'joke'.
Dear Fairouz
do you really think scientists can build a bridge, a nuclear power plant, a particle accelerator, an airplane, an airport or a even a house? Of course not, while scientists can design a lab experiment, they cannot engineer structures and systems. Consider an engineering system such as a nuclear power station, you will need all type of engineers to design it: nuclear engineers, electrical engineers, electronic engineers, material engineers, chemical engineers, civil engineers, structure engineers, computer engineers, system engineers, industrial engineers, control engineers, system engineers, environmental engineers, medical engineers, safety engineers and so on. While all these type of engineers need to have full knowledge of the relevant science involved no mattar how many nuclear, atomic, material, chemical, radiation physicists/scientists there are scientists alone cannot build a nuclear power station. Similarly engineers cannot engineer this complex system without the full knowledge of all aspects of, for example physics and chemistry involved. Engineers need scientists to be able to draw their engineering plans and scientists needs engineers to build the final structure based on these technical plans. The engineering drawings can therefore be thought as a language—a graphical language that communicates ideas, knowledge and technical information from the scientists to the engineer, but it is engineers who draw these plans and finally transform them to fully built engineered system. I hope you can see now why I said in an earlier post that science and engineering are fundamentally different.
Thank you my dears Krishnan, Hanno, Issam, George, Panagiotis, and James for your inputs and your thoughts. It seems that the question of science and engineering does not raised yet to a unified definition. I agree that the jobs are different from a practical viewpoint. However from knowledge basis fundamentals, engineering and science are same. Example at education level engineers' education needs deep mathematical background as mathematics education needs, the difference at the specialization level is that the first is oriented to practical packages and the second is oriented to theoretical background. When mathematicians will be specialized in a branch of mathematics, engineers will be specialized in a branch of chemistry, electricity, electronics, material, informatics, civil, structure, or physics .... sciences. Engineering sciences rely on fundamental science as fundamental science need engineering sciences to experiment theories. From philosophical approach science is based on observations, trials, and experimentation. Engineering sciences need as well observations, trials and experiments to build the final package. From the processing basis the 2 work or face the same natural phenomenon.So as fundamental science could design a theory, engineering sciences could face a lack in science knowledge (from practical conception) and need to feel the gap of the theory.
So i don't agree with you dear Issam when you said that they are fundamentally different. They are not different from fundamentals but are complementary in knowledge processing.
I agree with you Issam and James on "engineering is all about rearranging the stuff of the world to make (build) new things". Yes if engineering sciences do not build, construct, design all the human needs from advancing tools, technologies....etc for a more smart and happy life, the scientific knowledge from theories alone couldn't serves human. As Panagiotis said " the constructive tool of knowledge which enhances the continuous progress of our civilization" needs all fundamentals from philosophy, theories, practices, engineering, aesthetics ...etc...
Dear Fairouz
There is nothing wrong in disagreeing with me, its healthy for a dialogue to continue. Also, life (including RG )would be boring if everyone agreed with me!
Science and engineering are fundamentally different, a statement I shall defend. First of all science and engineering serve quite different purposes. Generally, science is the study of the physical world, while engineering applies scientific knowledge to design processes, structures, systems or equipment. I agree that both engineers and scientists have strong knowledge of science and mathematics and behind every engineering project there is a great deal of science. However, only engineers can apply these principles to designing solutions to engineering challenges.
Despite the dependence of engineering on science 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 Large Hadron Collider (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 or a space shuttle disintegrating-e.g space shuttle Challenger disaster. Advances in science are frequently due to creativity, not following rules.
Thus, although engineering and science are closely related, the two, in their heart of hearts, are very different; engineering uses science in order to build (e.g LHC) and science uses engineering in order to explore (e.g Higgs boson).
Dear Fairouz
Following on from my last post, this is further illustration of why science and engineering differ fundamentally despite their close relationship:
Science and engineering relate descriptive models to physical system. However, they do so in opposite directions:
Science starts with a physical system ( the Universe, for example) and seeks to develop a descriptive model — a scientific theory (Big Bang Theory, for example). Engineering starts with a descriptive model — an engineering design — and seeks to develop a physical system (Nuclear power station, for example) . In this, science and engineering work in opposites directions, and from this flow deep differences in thought and goals.
Consider how scientists and engineers choose their objectives. A scientist focuses on what is not yet understood, and studies it. An engineer focuses on what is already understood, and builds with it. Scientists seek simple systems that challenge their understanding; engineers seek to build systems of challenging complexity using understandable components.
Therefore, despite their close relationship, science and engineering differ fundamentally because they differ radically in their fundamental nature: 1) they serve different purposes and 2) they achieve their purposes differently.
Conclusion:
Science and engineering are fundamentally different.
Dear @Issam, there is no engineering without science! Agree!? I do agree with @Fairouz at all, especially in this :" They are not different from fundamentals but are complementary in knowledge processing."! So, Science and engineering are NOT fundamentally different! Do not You agree!?
Dear Ljubomir
Thank you for your response. I have in the last three posts explained passionately why I believe science and engineering differ fundamentally. I disagree that there is no engineering without science. History proves this, in a previous post I explained this:
A fundamental difference between engineering and science is that engineering needn't necessarily depends on science. Even totally without science there would still be engineering. Throughout history, a full scientific understanding has been neither necessary nor sufficient for great technological advances. let me give you a notable example: the era of the steam engine was well into its second century before a fully formed science of thermodynamics had been developed.
Engineering is older than science dating back at least to the building of the pyramids (Imhotep from the 27th century BC is the oldest named engineer). Stonehenge is the hallmark of modern engineering practice, Radiocarbon dating in 2008 suggested that the first stones were raised between 2400 and 2200 BC.
The first scientist, however, was Thales of Miletus, who lived from about 624 B.C. to about 545 B.C.
Science and engineering differ fundamentally in other ways too, see my previous three posts. I am afraid I differ with you on all counts except one: I agree that the two have a close relationship.
@Ljuomir, @Fairouz and @Issam: so far, in keeping with the excellent question for this thread, the discussion has focused on science and engineering as disciplines but if one considers scientists and engineers themselves, it is possible that we will arrive at different conclusions.
I am thinking of Shakespeare's observation: Each person in his life plays many parts (All the world's a stage monologue in As You Like It). I believe that many of us sometimes are doing science and we are scientists, if we are performing experiments to verify our hypotheses, using our knowledge of engineering and mathematics in designing experiments. Other times, some of us are doing engineering, if we are putting an engineering system together with a knowledge we have gained from science and mathematics.
Dear James
Thank you for always trying to bring divergent views together, this is clearly a sign of professionalism on your part and I commend you for this. What you said raise an interesting question: Does designing a laboratory experiment make a scientist an engineer? Alternatively, does a laboratory experiment constitute an engineering system? A question you have already answered:
"I admit that there is a fine line between the design of an engineering system and laboratory experiments designed by a scientist."
There is a clear distinction between a scientist and an engineer and this is related directly to what science and engineering do:
"Scientists study the world as it is; engineers create the world that has never been."
- Theodore von Kármán
Interestingly enough, Theodore von Kármán was both an engineer and a scientist! He was an aerospace engineer, a mathematician, and physicist. Clearly he was very well placed and informed when he made the distinction between scientist and engineer.
You just cannot mix apples with oranges!
@Fairouz Bettayeb
I wish to extend a big thank you for asking such an excellent question. I note however that you still have not taken my advice to include science and engineering as topics to your question. Your question is directed at scientists and engineers and is not just a 'general common interest' question. Scientists and engineers will specifically be most interested in your question. However, at the moment they remain secluded!
Thank you my dears Issam, Ljubomir, James for your nice contributions. Ljubomir and James explained clearly that no science could be achieved without experimental engineering system and no engineering system could be built without scientific knowledge. They are the faces of the same piece of knowledge processing, may be with different approaches;
I think that i undestood the viewpoint of Issam; the way of thinking of Issam is built on philosophical approach. We speak about same things but with different words;
However my dear Issam you said : "Even totally without science there would still be engineering. Throughout history, a full scientific understanding has been neither necessary nor sufficient for great technological advances."; and you gave the pyramids example. i think the pyramids buildings are the true example of scientific knowledge processing. May be there are no books left by this civilization to explain how engineers have conceived their calculus, still they have do it on scientific basis. So when you say that engineering is older than science, do you think that engineering is the core and mother of science; Ie from the processed systems, tools, equipments etc... human could build theories ie science??
Indeed when human needs tools, he thinks on materials and ways to model them, ie. he processes the data he has acquired or observed to make new data, new things, new technologies etc.... And when he has sufficient data he could builds knowledge and expand it by theories. So Engineering is the mental and applied exercise to let us master our world, our milieu, our needs, which could drive us 'when needed' to put theories from general purpose on a specific topic. So engineering and science are different in the sense that science couldn't expand knowledge without engineering the knowledge, when the knowledge engineering needs full mastering of the processed knowledge (may be from different topics/disciplines). Is it true??
All,
From the first time a person walked the earth and realized that if they stood on two feet they could see over the tall grasses and see if there was any danger close by to survive we have been using our brains to come up with ways to survive. The same when the person realized they could clime a tree and see even further and then realized the world they lived in was bigger than they just saw in the tall grasses.
Life as we know it today came from an ability to modify our surroundings to make life safer and realize that by knowing more we survive better. Engineering and science can not exist without each other they are both as old as we are. We just realized a few thousand years ago that sometime the engineering that we have based on the thought to survive or the science behind how to do that is going to lead to better and better ways to survive.
The real difference between the two is that we at some point in the past put a name to the difference between applying what we know and how we came to know that. In the real world we should understand that engineers push the limits of science and create as much new science in doing this as do the scientists who only see the tall grass and think of ways to make it shorter.
I am a scientist engineer.
Thank you dear George for your input; in fact we are all scientists engineers
I think the terms are misunderstood. Even the dictionary if you look at the term means much more than what we give it credit for. We like to narrowly define things and take away what an engineer was suppose to be.
The whole world for thousands of years though of a engineer as a originator of something. Engineers are as much scientist as anyone else. We have just limited what we think they are capable of doing. Albert Einstein one of the greatest theoretical minds of the 20th century was called on for his "Engineering Skills" several times in his life. Not because he was trained as an Engineer but because his understanding allowed him to be a skilled contriver or originator of things. A few patents and few machines and the like are attributed to his work.
Science and engineering are one. We as a legalistic society want to assign blame to people for failing to do their job well, so by necessity the fields have had to narrow the definition of what they do. This leads us to believe there is some real difference between a learned person and an engineer. The difference is only the focus of their work not what they are capable of building, designing, proposing, or innovating.
I borrowed this partial definition from my computer dictionary.
engineer |ˌenjəˈni(ə)r|
a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works.
• a person qualified in a branch of engineering, esp. as a professional
• a skillful contriver or originator of something : the prime engineer of the approach.
verb [ trans. ]
design and build (a machine or structure) : the men who engineered the tunnel.
• skillfully or artfully arrange for (an event or situation) to occur : she engineered another meeting with him.
I see a lot has been said. I just put my share.
To “do science” is to follow a prescribed method to arrive at knowledge. Science has proven successful in: explaining the world as we observe it;predicting what can be further observed and engineering i.e. building things that work
Dear Fairouz Bettayeb,
I would give a very succinct answer. Science is the conceptual part and Engineering is all about application. So, Engineering is the applications of Science.
Thank you dear Prashant for your contribution and to all for good comments and knowledge. Indeed engineering could be defined as applied concepts, however engineering is called engineer sciences too 'sciences de l'ingénieur'. Is definition of applied concepts from fundamental sciences 'ie maths, physics, chemistry, natural.... sciences' sufficient, or do engineering sciences need as well methodological, analytical and precision concepts and then further definition, or is engineering a mix of many sciences
science explores the natural world and discover new knowledge about the universe and how it works.
Engineering applying scientific knowledge to solve practical problems, with an eye toward optimizing cost, efficiency, or some other parameters.
Thank you @Stefan for your contribution; indeed nowadays the term 'research' is used extensively, as well in mass media advertising and sometimes by politicians ' may be some of them with no skills in science or research'. Lot of people could misunderstood it and do not correlate it with science. I think pure sciences from natural, maths, physics and chemistry as well as from humanities ' sociology, economy, literature, art..'etc...are the fundamentals of scientific knowledge, which could be derived from application and expertise ie engineering or multidisciplinary fields, experimentation or knowledge compilation, or from a theoretical background and its philosophy. Research couldn't be not scientific basis even if it addresses social and economic thematic. The term scientific research could be more appropriate.
I agree with you @Stefan "how science and engineering could be two dissimilar notions?" They are both sciences, built on same scientific knowledge from pure and applied sciences, each improves the other and vice verse.
You are right dear @Krishnan, the resolution of practical problems with engineering science approach, and the optimization or the search of the best efficiency of the solution, could generates, improves, corrects or helps to discover new scientific knowledge
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 problem solving, both rely on the same skills, analytic thinking and maths. Behind every engineering venture there is a great deal of science so they rely on each other. Despite these relationships between science and engineering the two are different. Engineering is based on everything being predictable whereas in science, the purpose of a mission is to answer a question to which the answer is currently unknown. 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.
You are right @Yogesh, however human creativity has begun with his discovering of how to built and develop tools (ie a kind of engineering). From past stone and bronze ages to nowadays technological advances and new materials, human discovered the knowledge, its process, its expertize and then has built theories . So is engineering the mother of science ??
Even exploring questions with unknown answers need many engineering processes and many expertise from known knowledge and tools
Nice definition dear Krishnan, tools are created by processes following the knowledge enabling creation while evolution and development of tools need intelligence from observations, experimentation, imagination and inspiration. So the two are the faces of the same piece of human intelligence from creation and evolution. They are the same science from the same knowledge who should evolves with human intelligence evolution. Engineering creates science, science creates knowledge and vice verse. And human intelligence enables evolution of science and engineering ie the knowledge (Le savoir et le savoir faire)
May be we could get a philosophical thought from human destiny that human was created for the purpose to make, fabricate, organize, draw, work, conceive, design, plan ... etc.. i.e should masters the know how (le savoir faire) throughout the work for enabling progress of the know (le savoir). Without the "doing" (le faire) or the work in general term, knowledge of general or any specific science couldn't evolves.
Very good definition of Krishnan!
Today's reality runs but other than 40 or 50 years ago. The starting position is now basically the practical task to be solved technically-engineering. It is only once not checked whether the scientific level is sufficient. Some technical solutions that are caused by pure Try can be difficult to develop because the scientific basis is not known. In addition, pure scientific research is very limited even possible.
In this situation, often combining scientific and engineering-technical development, which provides extra problems if excellent research projects must be described.
Dear Fairuz
Nice question, the two fields are intertwined
Sometimes Engineering fields are based on Science derivation and evolution.
Sometimes Science are developed based on Engineering Creation
Sometimes Engineering is a trade off to find a solution based on Engineering triangle (time, cost, performance)
Both fields subject to Research and Development ( R &D)
As such, no scientific barriers for both fields, both are integral for good research and projects. Both leads to scientific innovations. Both complements each other.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering