On Nov 30, 2:44 pm, Enrique Fynn <enriquef...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear aruzinsky... So you are suggesting that Feynman and a lot of > others theoretical physicists are not as scientist as engineers? >
I don't know Feynman or want to. In some important sense, but, not every sense, theoretical physicists are not as good as engineers. In the parlance of the general population, empirical validation is "reality check." On average, engineers better employ mathematical models to make predictions about reality because they get more reality checks. > Let me point out that, if someone build a computer, that doesn't turn > this someone in to a scientist, otherwise, some expert systems could > be considered scientists as well, if some system design structures, Design alone doesn't turn the designer into a scientist. But, when the designer also does original research and integrates the results of that research into his design, then he is a scientist. The success of that design is empirical validation of his research results. The electronic device that you are currently looking at is the result of much research done by engineers and scientists, and, the fact that it works adequately is empirical validation of their methods. > such as a building or something, and I am a computer scientist, and I > don't consider software engineering to be a science at all. > I don't know enough about software engineering as an academic subject to comment. I don't consider civil engineering a science. Do you regard electrical engineering as a science? How about chemical engineering? Mechanical engineering? I do. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.