Since this is really off topic, I hesitate to join in for the engineers.
However, I can't resist, for a couple of reasons.
The lay people who run our political system seem to have an idea that the
Scientists are a higher breed than the engineers, so when an engineering
calamity strikes (e.g., Challenger shuttle) in search of the most
prestigious 'scientific' review, they appoint a commission of scientists,
most of whom have no idea of what engineering is about. Yes, engineering is
applied science, but it is very much a co-equal discipline, with its own
history and lore. The result is usually a mess.
Second, we would have far better architecture if the architects were more
engineering oriented, and less artistic. Each has its place, bu Louis
Sullivan had it right over a hundred years ago, when he enunciated: "Form
follows Function". In other words, above all, it has to work, and then you
worry about how it looks.
Hersch
At 05:34 PM 11/17/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> > By the way, I'm studying architecture now, an arts subject, too. Or would
>you consider it to be an engineering > science?. Well might depend upon the
>school, I guess here at the technical university in Munich it's taught as
>an art - > strange isn't it.
>
>Engineering and science are two different things. One can certainly use
>'science' while doing engineering....but just because one is doing
>'engineering' one does not have to apply science. Architecture is
>definitely an art, but it also typically includes engineering (as in
>structural, material science and mechanical etc.). At least in my opinion
>;-)
