<p>I know that scientists do the research, and engineers do the applications.I just want to know if scientists look down on engineers in the realms of academia.</p>
<p>I was watching The Big Bang Theory, and I noticed that the rest of the nerds look down on Howard, the engineer of the group. There is scene when Sheldon visited Howard's job, and called the engineers the "umpa lumpas" of science and that they are semi laborers.</p>
<p>First off, the difference between engineers and scientists is not so black and white, and generally, the higher degree you get, the more that line blurs. Many engineers do research and many scientists end up doing applications.</p>
<p>Second, there is just as much occurrence of scientists “looking down on” engineers as there is the other way around. The two sides constantly rib each other either about being too applied or about not being able to apply what they study. It goes both way and it is mostly good-natured.</p>
<p>Take it easy, man. It is a sitcom. There is no holiday called Festivus either.</p>
<p>In the Real World, where engineers work, carbon nanotubes are SO not cheaper than titanium.</p>
<p>Besides, the best scientists can do is point to a whiteboard or a computer model and say “I helped do that” while an engineer can point to an airplane or rocket or building or car etc. and say “I helped do that”. Which is more impressive?</p>
I find this obscure in real world. I can see that in some fields, scientists are less involved in the construction or design. </p>
<p>The answer to scientist vs engineer depends on your job, I think… professors do research and very often they may discover new things. Do we called them engineers or scientists? That’s debatable.</p>
<p>It’s a blurry line. I know several people whose degree reads “science” who work as engineers and vice versa. I usually look at the divide as being between people who want to know the nature of the universe and others who want to build stuff. The engineers need the scientists to perform the foundational work, but the scientists need the engineers to transform their abstract concepts into useful things. Like waffle irons. Mmmmmm. Waffles.</p>
Not always. It is a very good approximation that works for most applications but not all. Relativity superseded Newton’s law of gravitation.</p>
<p>I would say relativity is a “sciency” thing but has engineering applications. It was discovered by scientists but is put to practical use by engineers.</p>
<p>Scientists may discover more things than engineers, and that’s debatable. Engineers actually understand what the scientists discovered, and use it to make things that actually work. Scientists don’t last long because they exist almost entirely in the realm of theory, while engineers last a long time, surviving on, as comic points out, waffles among other tangible, real world things.</p>
<p>^Well that is a stretch. There is a place for both scientists and engineers. Implying that all scientists are “practically ■■■■■■■■” is ignorant just like implying that all engineers can understand all the theory. The world needs scientists. The world needs engineers. The world has way too many lawyers and investment bankers.</p>
<p>You need both. One will not completely suffice without the other and that goes both ways. This simple acknowledgment alone should conclude the debate but I doubt it will.</p>
<p>It’s like arguing “Biochemist vs. Geneticist?”. Both have their own approaches, their own values, own way of seeing things, and own way of solving things. Seeing things from just one side is not good enough.</p>
<p>An analogous quote:
“One who does not know his opponent’s argument does not fully know his own.”
Likewise, one side alone will not thrive, you need both.</p>
<p>You may then argue, well is not one more important than the other or should not one be more emphasized than the other?</p>
<p>The point is, they both are needed for each other to progress. They both are a necessity to each other; concurrently, conjointly, collectively. If one is a necessity for the other then an argument of which is more important is really just petty. Is there one that is more important than the other? Maybe, maybe not, but the argument is simply petty given that they both are a necessity.</p>
<p>In a car, which is more important - the engine or the steering wheel? (or the tires or the doors or the windows). Is one more important than the other? Certainly one is more technologically advanced than the other so argue what you want, but in the end, without an engine the car is useless and without the steering wheel, the car is again useless. Same goes with the other examples - no tires = useless, no doors = no entry = useless, no windows = no view = crash = useless.</p>
<p>Too many lawyers, too many investment bankers, too many businessmen, too many project managers, too many people who aren’t specialized in anything that helps anyone.</p>
<p>What we really should be doing is ganging up on all the useless people in the world who do useless things… like cause economies to collapse or brainwash our children [and parents] with lavish fairy tales…</p>
<p>Well a title is a specialization. I don’t have a better word, so I use “title”.
Civilization begins when you have some forms of government, specialization, and trading.
I can actually say this to engineers and scientists lol</p>
<p>Did you hear the one about the statisticians that went duck hunting? One missed the duck on the high side and one missed low by about the same amount. They high-fived each other and said “Bullseye!”</p>
<p>Ha … I love the Big Bang Theory its absolutely true that Science Majors IE physics majors and Engineering majors jar at each other on Universities …I doubt it happens in the professions …My Circuits professor always picks on Science majors in class but its all in good fun …The funny thing is whereas Chemistry majors know very little on the Applied Engineering side … Physicists actually know a lot about Engineering</p>