Comments on: Why Do I Prefer Theory to the Application? http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/ Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:14:01 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: An engineer’s point of view on the difference between science and application! « Let the nature calculate for you… And then use it to calculate the nature! http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-140 An engineer’s point of view on the difference between science and application! « Let the nature calculate for you… And then use it to calculate the nature! Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:43:34 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-140 [...] By Sina Salek Couple of weeks ago, I had an exciting debate on some points in my previous entry with Mehrdad. He is offering us his insight on the matter science and engineering. Although I [...] [...] By Sina Salek Couple of weeks ago, I had an exciting debate on some points in my previous entry with Mehrdad. He is offering us his insight on the matter science and engineering. Although I [...]

]]> By: Sina Salek http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-139 Sina Salek Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:09:24 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-139 Amyr, > I`m not sure that we are, you are actually, separating the two -philosophy and science- from a right angle. I agree that my separation is not practical! Mehrdad is writing a guest post for this weblog to show this, albeit for my separation of science and engineering. However, we need a sort of categorization to discuss why we do things! And I believe mine was the closest to the reality! > But looking at things the way they are it seems science is more than ever headed to instrumentalism. This is not true, at least about subjectivism! > it slowly makes you forget the questions unanswered if not avoiding them. Great comment if you are talking about physics. Amyr,

> I`m not sure that we are, you are actually, separating the two -philosophy and science- from a right angle.

I agree that my separation is not practical! Mehrdad is writing a guest post for this weblog to show this, albeit for my separation of science and engineering. However, we need a sort of categorization to discuss why we do things! And I believe mine was the closest to the reality!

> But looking at things the way they are it seems science is more than ever headed to instrumentalism.

This is not true, at least about subjectivism!

> it slowly makes you forget the questions unanswered if not avoiding them.

Great comment if you are talking about physics.

]]> By: Leila http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-138 Leila Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:05:27 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-138 I think engineering and science are defined by different objectives but I cannot agree with Amyr and you on the undoubtable line between science and engineering in general. Engineering comes from creating things by contrast science is derived form the Latin word "scire" which means to know so they have fundamentally different objectives. But if we define engineering and technology as the application of science for human benefit we come to a question that how come tools are much older than science? If we consider ancient technology. Engineers do not need meta-theoretical knowledge, they don’t need to get better and deeper knowledge but they need to get better results and ends. For me engineering is applying what we already know, so there is really not much fun in it. but I cant look down on it as a science-lees application of science, without extended technologies there will be no lab and there will be no empirical science since experiment is the cornerstone for every empirical science. No doubts, science and engineering have different methods and aims, but I don’t think the traditional difference between engineering and science is a sharp one! If you look at an institute of solid state physics you can say that their aims do not differ, so there is no exact line between them in general. It depends on the problem which one tries to solve, which means it depends on the context. Years ago one could use astrophysics as an example of a kind of science without any connection to technology, today, an engineer who wants to construct a fusion reactor will ask a plasma physicist whether a high energy state of a special type is possible or not, and the plasma physicist will ask the astrophysicist whether such a state has taken place sometime during the history of the universe. So you can see how connected they get. At last as a pure science student, science is seeing everything in a bigger canvas that’s why I prefer it. I think engineering and science are defined by different objectives but I cannot agree with Amyr and you on the undoubtable line between science and engineering in general.
Engineering comes from creating things by contrast science is derived form the Latin word “scire” which means to know so they have fundamentally different objectives.
But if we define engineering and technology as the application of science for human benefit we come to a question that how come tools are much older than science? If we consider ancient technology.
Engineers do not need meta-theoretical knowledge, they don’t need to get better and deeper knowledge but they need to get better results and ends. For me engineering is applying what we already know, so there is really not much fun in it. but I cant look down on it as a science-lees application of science, without extended technologies there will be no lab and there will be no empirical science since experiment is the cornerstone for every empirical science.
No doubts, science and engineering have different methods and aims, but I don’t think the traditional difference between engineering and science is a sharp one! If you look at an institute of solid state physics you can say that their aims do not differ, so there is no exact line between them in general. It depends on the problem which one tries to solve, which means it depends on the context. Years ago one could use astrophysics as an example of a kind of science without any connection to technology, today, an engineer who wants to construct a fusion reactor will ask a plasma physicist whether a high energy state of a special type is possible or not, and the plasma physicist will ask the astrophysicist whether such a state has taken place sometime during the history of the universe. So you can see how connected they get. At last as a pure science student, science is seeing everything in a bigger canvas that’s why I prefer it.

]]> By: Amyr http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-137 Amyr Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:39:09 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-137 In my opinion and experience the question of "what" is fundamentally a function of how and why. So I`m not sure that we are, you are actually, separating the two -philosophy and science- from a right angle. I believe especially in recent years the line between these two has faded. You can't really Read and understand Philosophy unless you are at least familiar with modern schools of thought in science and a certain level of technical knowledge. In science, especially within modern physics, there is something amorphous, you would say, forming which sometimes presents its self as a philosophical discourse, sometimes Fiction, sometimes even Gnosticism and Religious experience. So I'm not totally with you on differences between Philosophy and science as you pointed out. But I agree that in the sense of applicationism, science and philosophy are on the same side while engineering is on the other. If we want to talk about thing as they should be, or at least as they were, I agree that in theoretical science people are more curious about the "fabric of reality". But looking at things the way they are it seems science is more than ever headed to instrumentalism. You hear the echoes of "It Works!" over and over again in the science community and it slowly makes you forget the questions unanswered if not avoiding them. Although there is an undoubtable line between science in general and engineering, I think science very much depends on engineering for its evolution and to a point existence, unfortunately. And even though I totally agree with your five reasons about differences between engineering and what I`d like to call absolute science, I think today they are both on the same league. In my opinion and experience the question of “what” is fundamentally a function of how and why. So I`m not sure that we are, you are actually, separating the two -philosophy and science- from a right angle. I believe especially in recent years the line between these two has faded. You can’t really Read and understand Philosophy unless you are at least familiar with modern schools of thought in science and a certain level of technical knowledge. In science, especially within modern physics, there is something amorphous, you would say, forming which sometimes presents its self as a philosophical discourse, sometimes Fiction, sometimes even Gnosticism and Religious experience. So I’m not totally with you on differences between Philosophy and science as you pointed out.
But I agree that in the sense of applicationism, science and philosophy are on the same side while engineering is on the other.
If we want to talk about thing as they should be, or at least as they were, I agree that in theoretical science people are more curious about the “fabric of reality”. But looking at things the way they are it seems science is more than ever headed to instrumentalism. You hear the echoes of “It Works!” over and over again in the science community and it slowly makes you forget the questions unanswered if not avoiding them.
Although there is an undoubtable line between science in general and engineering, I think science very much depends on engineering for its evolution and to a point existence, unfortunately. And even though I totally agree with your five reasons about differences between engineering and what I`d like to call absolute science, I think today they are both on the same league.

]]> By: Fateme http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-136 Fateme Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:19:43 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-136 To Elnaz, As I mentioned in my second comment, in my opinion there are some cases that science answer “why ” questions and some cases that answer “how ” questions. and sometimes it can not answer “why” questions, nor “haw” questions. We can not say “MOST” of the time it answer “why ” questions. yes, I agree with you that in many cases (not only in the case of “haw” questions, but also in the case of “why” questions) due to lack of information, scientists can not draw conclusion. Another thing that you have cited in your comment was “real information”! What does “REAL” mean in this statement? p.s. I know the purpose of this post is not discussing on some questions such as my last question. So I believe it is better to postpone the answer until visit each other! To Elnaz,

As I mentioned in my second comment, in my opinion there are some cases that science answer “why ” questions and some cases that answer “how ” questions. and sometimes it can not answer “why” questions, nor “haw” questions. We can not say “MOST” of the time it answer “why ” questions.

yes, I agree with you that in many cases (not only in the case of “haw” questions, but also in the case of “why” questions) due to lack of information, scientists can not draw conclusion.

Another thing that you have cited in your comment was “real information”! What does “REAL” mean in this statement?

p.s. I know the purpose of this post is not discussing on some questions such as my last question. So I believe it is better to postpone the answer until visit each other!

]]> By: Sina Salek http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-135 Sina Salek Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:01:26 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-135 Afsoon, First of all I have to mention that the purpose of this post is to compare science and engineering. I am planning to do the same comparison between science and philosophy in a latter one. Nevertheless, I can say something in response to your comment, but I wish to postpone the complete discussion until I upload the relateed blogpost. Generally speaking, I do not believe that many of the scientists are in our side because of the science-religion conflict. Furthermore, there are still many religious scientists around us! By the same argument I will say that I don’t think many scientists would become philosopher if it wasn’t confused! Afsoon,

First of all I have to mention that the purpose of this post is to compare science and engineering. I am planning to do the same comparison between science and philosophy in a latter one. Nevertheless, I can say something in response to your comment, but I wish to postpone the complete discussion until I upload the relateed blogpost.

Generally speaking, I do not believe that many of the scientists are in our side because of the science-religion conflict. Furthermore, there are still many religious scientists around us! By the same argument I will say that I don’t think many scientists would become philosopher if it wasn’t confused!

]]> By: Elnaz Karami http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-134 Elnaz Karami Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:54:24 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-134 hmmmm....I don't know much about engineering but in medical site, I've found application degrees such skill which doesn't feed curiosity of mind.you learn to do something in some particular techniques but choosing which one is on your own under situations... and in addition, in theorical biology(which is completely experimental:P) there's many trial and errors, your definition for theorical science doesn't include all of it! to Fatemeh: science most of times asks "why" and comes across to "how" questions and explains the answers but disability of it for explaining it, is result of scientist's lack of real information for conclusion! hmmmm….I don’t know much about engineering but in medical site, I’ve found application degrees such skill which doesn’t feed curiosity of mind.you learn to do something in some particular techniques but choosing which one is on your own under situations… and in addition, in theorical biology(which is completely experimental:P) there’s many trial and errors, your definition for theorical science doesn’t include all of it!

to Fatemeh: science most of times asks “why” and comes across to “how” questions and explains the answers but disability of it for explaining it, is result of scientist’s lack of real information for conclusion!

]]> By: afsoonica http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-133 afsoonica Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:33:54 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-133 one might prefer science cuz it could be considered as a replacement to religion and philosophy, since a large number of people no longer believe in the assumptions of religion, and philosophy has become confused the next best choice would be science. one might prefer science cuz it could be considered as a replacement to religion and philosophy, since a large number of people no longer believe in the assumptions of religion, and philosophy has become confused the next best choice would be science.

]]> By: Fateme http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-132 Fateme Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:35:36 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-132 Yes, I know there are some cases that science explains why an especial phenomenon happened! But I mean there are also some cases that science cannot answer the question "why this phenomenon happened?"! (در ضمن شما یک کم ترسناک جواب آدم رو می دیا! :P) Yes, I know there are some cases that science explains why an especial phenomenon happened! But I mean there are also some cases that science cannot answer the question “why this phenomenon happened?”!

(در ضمن شما یک کم ترسناک جواب آدم رو می دیا! :P )

]]> By: Sina Salek http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/why-do-i-prefer-theory-to-the-application/#comment-131 Sina Salek Sat, 08 Nov 2008 20:07:30 +0000 http://sinasalek.wordpress.com/?p=92#comment-131 Example: Physicist asks "Why my ball is in position (x, y, z) at time t?" and classical physics answers "Because you have gave it such momentum in such direction plus the other enviromental effects." Example: Physicist asks “Why my ball is in position (x, y, z) at time t?” and classical physics answers “Because you have gave it such momentum in such direction plus the other enviromental effects.”

]]>