So let’s clear it up:
1. I’m pretty sure, we both know what I meant when I said “real-world” about math. So no argument here.

2. I think I know what you meant about magical. Surely, it was magical for Einstein. Engineering is also magical for those who love what they do. When they accomplish something. When they build something that works, they’ll feel exactly the same magic. It’s just a matter of personal preference. I said that example to dismiss your claim about theory being more magical for everybody. It completely depends on the person.

3. Yeah, you can do, maybe in faculty of engineering. You cannot remove constraints completely, because that way it won’t work correctly. We’re talking about good aspects of both of them. Not about how you can cheat in science of engineering.

4. I don’t get what you mean… But how it’s not science. It is a part of science nevertheless.

5. Yeah you can. Great example. I said you can’t do it? Yeah you can, definitely. What I said is that when you do bullshit in engineering, it’s more probable that you’ll get caught since what you do won’t work correctly.

6. I said exactly what you said. Theory needs more “open-minded” people. It is exactly what I said! I don’t know why you got me differently. What I said is that while theory needs more open-minded people, close minded ones such as most of instructors teaching at UT can LOOK relevant for a longer period. The keyword here is “look.” They are not relevant at all. But there is no real way you can catch them easily, because what they say might be “right” in a sense (since they were right 50 years ago) but it’s not acceptable at 2008. This is what I meant. As I said, it’s not a fault of science.

Hey dude, look at this a bit differently. Ha-Ha!

Sure! I’m serious. It depends on your definition of the word “world”!

> Einstein talked about teleportation without any hope of such machine being built.

Perfect example! Einstein didn’t hope, because he really believed in his relativity! However, we know that there are many physical devices for the quantum teleportation experiment now! I think it is not too hard to find them on the web! This is what I mean by the word “magical”!

> theories, you can remove constraints.

I could say this easier about the engineering! In theory, you have to consider every infinitesimal constraint; otherwise your theory becomes faulty! This is while your engineering problem is correct, unless it doesn’t work due to an engineering simplification and induction!

>in simple physics studies, you ignore friction while studying motion.

This is not science! It is just PRACTICING science!

> In application, there is no way you do bullshit all the time and expect it to work correctly

You can do bullshit everywhere! Ha-ha! See what our friends do in our faculty of engineering!

>theory is usually more vulnerable to these “close-minded” people than application is.

No way! As an example, in application it happens that your product will be upgraded to be the next version or it will be replaced by a similar, but refined, one! However in theory it happens that, according to its revocability, your theory be dismissed by the next theory! So theory needs open-minded people, more than application.

About the difference between computer science and biology, I wanted to mention the magnitude of difference! Not the type of it.

“All scientific problems are real world”
Not all of them. Do you think math is a real world concept? Number theory was real world when born?! There are many things we can say. But in science, you can sometimes overcome existing limitations. This is what I mean from the “real world” thing. Einstein talked about teleportation without any hope of such machine being built. Theories might be “about” real world but they do not have to have a real world “application”.

Being idealist is relative. In theories, you can remove constraints. For example, in simple physics studies, you ignore friction while studying motion. The magnitude of ignoring reality to make your model simple is far less in engineering than theoretical sciences.

Probably true, but in most other sciences, you study how things work. There is no problem to solve. All problems are solved and you want to know the solution. Doesn’t really matter, but yeah, you might be right.

The example was direct response to your use of the word “magical”. Nothing I really believe in!

The last comment was not about scientific communities in general. It was about my personal preference to engineering. It’s one of the reasons I STRONGLY PREFER application to theory. In application, there is no way you do bullshit all the time and expect it to work correctly, but in theory, she’ll say whatever she wants and there will be no way to show her she’s absolutely thinking about wrong things. My point was exactly what you said. It was not a “which one is better” comparison. It’s not a flaw. But due to its nature, theory is usually more vulnerable to these “close-minded” people than application is. I don’t mean that all theoretical scientist think about old things at all!!! I mean in theoretical sciences people like “Ahrabian” and “Shafi’i” will look relevant for a longer period.
I know it’s not the same everywhere. That’s why I’ve not quit my studies yet and planning to go somewhere that they know what they’re doing!

you say:

>by science he means theoretical sciences.

Not true! In my definition, theoretical scientist invents ,say, AQC as an scalable architecture for quantum computing. Experimental scienctist builds a scalable AQC computer. Engineer builds a scalable AQC computer which is suitable for mass production.

>the difference between science and engineering is just like the difference between computer science and biology.

Incorrect! Due to the definition above, biology and computer science are more fundamental!

>Engineering is the science of integrating a variety of theoretical solutions to different problems to provide a complete solution to a specific real world problem

Unfair! All of the scientific problems are real world! Otherwise they wouldn’t come to existance!

>In theory, you can be an idealist.

However, most of the theorists are not!

>You define a problem and solve it.

Probably true about computer science. Nevertheless, absolutely incorrect about most of the sciences such as physics and biology!

>Ask anyone, going to the moon is more magical or just thinking for yourself that you have a teleportation device that can take you to the moon in an instant!

This example is quite far from the reality! Your example shows the comparison between science and science-fiction!!! And is irrelevant in this context! You bring such an example because you think the problems of science are not real world!

Finally, your comment on scientific communities and old theories is not universal! This is two fold! I am a big fan of computation and complexity theory. But I never enjoyed Ahraabiaan’s course on the theory of computation! She insists on the topics such as recursion, which is now useless and old as a matter of computation theory. Therefore in that course they are not able to pay enough attention to the more useful computational models! However, on the other hand, you can check Scott Aaronson’s lecture notes at MIT to change your idea about scientific communities!