This essay was motivated by a question from an engineering colleague. It would be presumptuous to say “friend,” as scientist and engineers are in a state of “friendly” rivalry, however, not to the extent as with arts. I once saw a sign in an engineering department hallway that read: Friends do not let friends study arts. Be that as it may, my colleague’s question was why scientists do not show the same order in all their work as they show in writing papers. That question I will attempt to answer in this essay.
Engineering is far older than science, being perhaps the second oldest profession, dating back at least to the building of the pyramids (Imhotep from the 27th century BCE is the oldest named engineer) and Stonehenge and probably back to when the first club was engineered. Stonehenge is amazing as it was probably built without the documentation that is the hallmark of modern engineering practice. Unfortunately, that means we do not know what the initial requirements[1] were and this has led to much futile speculation as to its purpose.
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 example, that the Higgs boson will be found at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) or that the building will not collapse in an earthquake. Secondarily they use similar techniques, placing high importance on analytic reasoning, to the extent that Asperger’s syndrome is sometimes called the engineer’s disease. The relation between Asperger’s syndrome and engineers or scientists may be an urban myth but it does indicate the relation of extreme analytic thought to both science and engineering. The solution to problems in both relies on the same problem solving skills, analytic thinking and mathematics. Do not let anyone tell you that either does not require a high degree of intellectual activity.
Science and engineering rely on each other. Behind every engineering project is a great deal of science, from the basic understanding of Newtonian mechanics in the building of a bridge to the advanced materials science in the construction of a cell phone. Actually, the cell phone is a good example of all the science needed: it depends on Newtonian mechanics (the construction of the cell phone towers), quantum mechanics (the operation of the transistors), classical electromagnetism i.e. Maxwell’s equations (the propagation of the signal from the tower to the cell phone), materials science (almost all the cell phone itself), and general and special relativity (the GPS timing that is necessary in some cell phone technologies).
Equally, science is beholden to engineering. From simple things like the buildings that house scientific equipment to complicated things like the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Making a building may seem simple but, as I see with the new ARIEL building at TRIUMF, nothing is simple and even something as basic as a laboratory building relies on engineering expertise. The ATLAS detector is another story. Its size and complexity are a marvel of engineering virtuosity. Back to TRIUMF, the IEEE has recognized the TRIUMF cyclotron, commissioned in 1974 and the main driver for much of TRIUMF’s science program, as an Engineering Milestone. Even the slide rule I used back in ancient history as an undergraduate[2] was an engineering achievement.
Despite the close relationship between science and engineering 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 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. Advances in science are frequently due to creativity, not following rules.
This difference in perspective leads to very different cultures in the two disciplines. The engineer is much more concerned with process and following procedure. The scientist with following up his most recent hunch—after all, it could lead to a Nobel Prize. Engineering versus science: order versus creative chaos. This is clearly an oversimplification as there is no clean separation between engineering and science, but it is a good indication of the divergence between the two mindsets. Thus, although engineering and science are closely related and indeed intertwined, the two, in their heart of hearts, are very different; engineering uses science in order to build and science uses engineering in order to explore.
Additional posts in this series will appear most Friday afternoons at 3:30 pm Vancouver time. To receive a reminder follow me on Twitter: @musquod.
[1] Project management jargon alert: requirements used in technical project management sense.
[2] HP produced the first pocket calculator when I was an undergraduate student.
Tags: Engineering, Order versus creative chaos, Philosophy of science
That makes it sound like engineers don’t really have anything to do.
We’re not supposed to be creative, we’re not supposed to figure out anything that isn’t already known, we’re just supposed to plug and chug and get a result? I don’t think so. If that were what we did, a computer could replace us.
On the contrary, engineers are very much concerned with using their creativity to solve problems whose answer is not known. What is the most efficient cost-effective circuit for stepping down this voltage? What design for this computer program will be flexible enough to accommodate future changes? Is there any way to make a building in this shape that will support itself? These are real questions which are not answered until an engineer sits down and uses his creativity to think up some ideas. Even then, it’s hard to know whether you’ve ever found the absolute best possible approach.
I hate to break it to you, but the real world of engineering also operates in a state of chaos. That’s why testing is so important, in fact. Real systems are often a bundle of clever-but-hard-to-analyze hacks, and approaches that work well in one case may turn out not to have the most desirable properties in other cases. Often, we end up having to back up and refactor our designs into a simpler, more general, more ideal form in order to deal with new complexities, just as scientists have to do with their equations when new principles are discovered. And figuring out the structure of the more general solution in its most elegant form isn’t always easy.
I’m the first to admit that scientists are smarter than engineers, but I sure take exception to anyone who tries to tell me that the difference between science and engineering is that one involves human creativity and the other is just robotic number-crunching!
If someone asked me the difference between science and engineering, I would say that scientists try to figure out the rules of the game, while engineers try to devise strategies within those rules to win the game.
Speaking as an engineer (electronics), although following procedure and regulation is important it is the worst part of the job for me. I like to bring some creative chaos to any engineering challenge and then take some of the fresh ideas that result through to a feasible, novel and elegant solution. That for me is the exciting aspect of the profession.
Actually I thought accountancy was traditionally accepted as the second oldest profession, take for instance all the neat lists of goods they carve on many of the Egyptian tombs. Talking of accountancy, that is a great profession for someone with an Asperger’s like attention to detail. The times I have seen my accountant father spend hours looking for the last half penny error to balance a clients books put me off the profession from an early age. For me the 3 digit precision of my old slide rule was usually good enough to see if the thing would work or disappear in a puff of black smoke.
Hello Byron,
just dropping by to say what an enjoyable read on this a late Sunday afternoon. Also some funny nand amusing responses. Thanks!
Geoffrey
Our Knowledge Management – based Higgs Boson Scientific study vs Physics – based Higgs Boson Engineering study :
• Within Nature Knowledge Theory, Knowledge which is Consciousness attributed, for the first time clarified as one of the fundamental structure or fabric of Universe beside Matter and Energy as well as having traits to be Independent to SpaceTime (IST) contrary with Matter and Energy which are Dependent to SpaceTime (DST)
• Based on Nature Knowledge Theory, the nature as well as nurtured Knowledge system could be considered as high end of Universe evolution. Further we treated our solid and robust Human System Biology-based Knowledge Management (HSBKM) model framework as applied science with Inverted Paradigm Method (IPM) similar with doing reverse engineering to giving benefit for Theoretical and/or Astro Physics as basic science through discovery some of their new theoretical constructs ( http://bit.ly/wOIXq6 (ABSTRACT) – Md Santo, M.Arsali : “Impact of Human System Biology‐based Knowledge Management (HSBKM) model framework on Theoretical Physics” , presented at “The International Conference on Mathematics and Sciences” – Surabaya Institute of Technology (ITS), Indonesia, October 12 – 13, 2011 )
• From http://bit.ly/uUfNPx – “Higgs Boson HSBKM – generated vs Higgs Boson LHC – generated” it is with no doubt could be stated that our HSBKM‐generated (HSBKM = Human System Biology‐based Knowledge Management model framework) is purely science(tific) model contrary with LHC(Large Hadron Collider) which is assumed more as engineering effort model relative to HSBKM. Not intended to negate the current method of CERN (The European Organization for Nuclear Research) used, but we would seeking another approach as well as entirely new another paradigm to complementing the work of CERN – LHC (Large Hadron Collider)
• One of our noted statement cited from our study complementing CERN work among others, ……k – constant approaches 0.0 such as the ecosystem of Higgs Boson, will make all scientific efforts practically a “mission impossible” . We dare to say, almost impossible to any scientific effort goes beyond “our illusion dream land” with “k” = 1.0 to leap into “absolute dream land” with “k” less than 1.0 or practically = 0.0 considering that “…… space-time is only the notion of human being in the universe to accommodate the existence of Matter and Energy….. ( http://bit.ly/I3ADkr -“Knowledge Management (KM) – based predicting the hunt for Higgs Boson (God Particle) compared with non KM – based” )
• To know more about our Knowledge Management (KM) – driven Higgs Boson study, follow our Knowledge – base http://www.delicious.com/mobeeknowledge/higgsboson ( there are 16 Higgs Boson related articles all retrieved from our Knowledge repository http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com )
Hello Byron:
Interesting old-new topic!
I tend to think (and I have tried to tackle this issue before) that science preceeded engineering. Science is the study and analysis of understanding the physical nature of matter and of our entire linked universe. Science starts by observation of physical phenomena and proceeds to build theoretical and analytical model. It then sets up experiments to prove if those theoretical models can be generalized or they are just local.
Word engineering comes from engine (mechanical is the most difficult discipline within engineering family due to its combination of object motion, object dynamics, object energy and thermodynamic state, relationship to its fluid surrounding densities, etc… ). Engines (not necessarily combustion engines) date back to early history. When older civilizations tried to pump out water from deep down water wells, they used a bucket with a long rope. This is exactly a primitive version of a modern electromechanical pump. When they tried to build the pyramids, they used pulleys with ropes and slides to raise the gigantic rocks to higher elevations in the pyramidal structure. This is also a primitive mechanical crane.
Concluding: Engineering is the application of science and math (new technologies) to create human usable physical objects that serve our mere being.
I don’t think working in engineering lacks the opportunity to be creative and ingenious. It is just rather than being creative in discovering new laws of nature, engineers strive to be creative in finding new ways to utilize/take advantage of the laws of nature. It is a different form of creativity, but it is not a lesser form.
In experimental physics, I think creativity in devising new experimental methods and equipments can definitely be categorized as engineering. A few examples: stochastic and electron cooling, Hanbury-Brown Twiss intensity interferometry, multiwire proportional chamber. Those are not really new laws of nature, but rather new methods/techniques to those laws.
Hi haryo and Byron:
If you have been able to read between the lines of my comment, I tried to point out that engineering is the older way (rope with bucket, crane with pulleys, …) to create things that meet your needs.
So, I strongly share your view of solid engineering creativity and ingenuity. In fact my engineering academics, my industrial research, and my experience are in the field of multi-fluid dynamics in mechanical engineering.
Outside engineering, I relate my knowledge to quantum science engineering of “quark-gluon-plasma” state discovered by CERN scientist in 2000.
This incredibly important discovery will soon unveil the true face of matter. That all matter is always in plasma / fluid form including all known particles. LHC high energy density collisions DO NOT MELT matter because of collision energy. Matter is already in liquid form of low viscosity and ultra high density. The difference is density of matter which makes nucleons of ultra-high density behave like solid matter, where infact they are liquid form at ultra elevated densities that need head-on collisions that thermodynamically add collision energy to further liquidify matter.
Soon, after many LHC runs at much higher collision densities, we may be able to see why at the microworld, quantum matter does not change state!!!?. Unlike dynamics of change-of-state of matter at the macroworld level, there is no change-of-state at the microworld level of quantum mechanics, otherwise our universe and matter would not coexist !!!
The biggest proof we have today is that under LHC super colliding experiments, we are not able to track many decays whose lifespan is of the order less than 1.0 X 10-33sec. Higgs boson exists as many-fold faster than light liquid decay state (within the global matter liquidity / plasma state).
Anyway, for the record, to most of us, such will be very surprising.
I should have stressed the second part of paragraph three more. The line between science and engineering is by no means clear cut and is to some extent arbitrary. Certainly there is a role for creativity in engineering and for order in science. But order plays a larger role in good engineering practice.
Science as recognized discipline is quite recent, dating to the seventeenth century. What is recognizable as engineering is much older. In an informal sense, both were probably used in building the first club.
Popped into this mess via Linked-In.
Have an observation: A scientist will electrocute herself multiple times to find the cause; an engineer will find out the optimal method of electrocution; a humanities head will wonder why electrocute anyone. A philosopher will ask: Are we asking the right question about the right phenomena?
To put is simply– A scientist has an idea and an engineer runs with it.