Scientists and engineers: What do you think the difference is?

One works in the field of the unknown.

The other works in the field of the known.

Think about it.

Engineering uses what science has found out.
Scientists discover/invent something, then give it away for free. Engineers design something, then sell it.

@john65pennington
Yes that is quite obvious, but my point is that scientists and engineers approach problems differently and seem to have distinctly different strengths and weaknesses that are only compounded by the education system. Yes there is a feedback look between the two – scientists give us a greater understanding of the world, engineers take that information and apply it to solving human problems, and give scientists new questions to investigate. Furthermore, engineers do sometimes make discoveries and scientists may sometimes invent things, and so the loop flows in both directions. And also, there is applied science which is firmly rooted in “the known”, as you put it, but is orchestrated by people that are more scientist than engineer even though their work IMO is more like engineering than pure science. I am really wondering what other scientists and engineers think about this. If you agree or not. What you think the future of the fields are. I know this is a very broad and general question, but it’s not a bad thing to consider the big picture from time to time.

@ragingloli
Scientists are more focused on discovery not invention. They don’t really give it away for free. Funding for research has to come from somewhere, and then its findings are published in proprietary journals that restrict access to the information. Not all engineers design.

This is like asking what the difference between a human being and a child might be: it mistakes a category for a kind. Engineers are a kind of scientist, even if they focus almost exclusively on applied science.

Hmm, You say you’ve worked as both scientist and engineer. But, sorry I think you have poor ideas of both scientists and engineers. Maybe the scientists and engineers you worked with are atypical.

“Scientists have a very poor understanding of, and ability to do, math and physics, and aren’t that technically savvy when it comes to using computers and other technology.”
That’s a bizarre statement. Most scientists have to use quite a bit of math in their work, and many are physicists. Even the “soft sciences” like sociology usually require competence in statistics to get the work done.
How about the folks at CERN as just one example of scientists who are using state-of-the-art maths to do work at the forefront of physics.

“engineering schools seem to eliminate the biological science”
One of the most fascinating and demanding engineering fields is biomedical engineering where people are working on medical instrumentation to scan and diagnose ailments and treat them. Engineers build interfaces with the human nervous system to allow disabled people to regain some functions.
Engineering schools may seem to eliminate almost anything but engineering courses because in four years you can barely pack enough engineering in to get a start in any practical field. Better universities do require some electives in humanities. Any university major is going to stuff you full of coursework in that major. Students with curiosity can take courses in other fields.

Engineering and Science overlap substantially all over the place. All of the most interesting technological advances I can think of are enabled by scientists in materials research coming up with new ways to make and master atoms, molecules, compounds; And there are engineers right there with them using that information to make things we use. Quite often the people doing that are one-and-the-same.

Modern science, especially physics and astrophysics, is almost pure mathematics. The theory of relativity started out as a purely mathematical construct. So did Quantum Mechanics. As is M-Theory today.

@SavoirFaire That is an interesting point. I agree engineering is an applied science. In practice, scientists and engineers have very different goals.

@dabbler Yes I agree that not all scientists are poor at math. My experience comes from the natural sciences so obviously those in the physical sciences need a much better understanding of physics, calculus, differential equations. I knew someone would want to bring up biomedical engineering or bioengineering. Yes there can be overlap, but it is not as common as it should be. Yes I understand why bio is eliminated from curriculum, and I have experienced how rigorous engineering curriculum is. Humanities are not the same as biological science. There is a difference between elective and requirement. I think everyone should be required to take basic biology and physics. I agree that there is overlap and that it is at these intersections that major advances are possible, indeed this is the thesis of my point – that we need stronger connection between the two disciplines because all of the problems we need to solve require expertise from both sides. Disagree that the engineer is often also the scientist.
@ragingloli Disagree that modern science is pure math. In physics, yes, this is probably the case. In natural sciences, not so much.

I think the problem is that “science” and “engineering” are far too broad for this to be a meaningful discussion.

Two broad terms, Science by itself is a basic value. Same for Engineering. Science is almost all thought while engineering is almost all practice. Aerospace is a type of engineering that plans and develops space technology, and the whole aerospace concept runs off of tons of math and scientific principles. But Aerospace scientists are considered engineers. But the people that develop the jet technology are considered scientists, it all depends on the class you fall under.

@wallabies How are you using “natural science” as a term? It usually refers to biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and the earth sciences. The term is used to distinguish these sciences from the social sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics) and the formal sciences (logic, mathematics, statistics, computer science).

One gets paid more regularly.

I view it as I do the difference between the artist and the technician. One can do what needs to be done, the other has the spark of inspiration.

@Dances_with_Werewolves

Physics is in physical sciences not natural sciences. Natural sciences are things like biology, ecology, etc. I’ve never seen physics lumped in with the natural sciences and I don’t think it makes sense to do that.

@rojo A lot of engineers would take that as an insult. They are inspired, too.

I’m currently studying engineering. I think what separates us from scientists is that scientists are very good when it comes to theory, explaining how things work, and why things are they way they are. There seems to be a very solid method in how to do things. There are also cases in which something may make sense in thoery, but practically, may not work out so smoothly.

In engineering, we are given a problem, and we’ll do whatever it takes just to make it work. As far as our methods go on how we came to a solution, however weird and wacky it may be, don’t even worry about it, and just trust that it’s going to do what it was designed to do.

I’ll end with a lame joke:
Let’s say we’ve got some kind of mysterious gadget and someone asks “what does this do?”
The scientist will analyze it, run tests, and explain the ins and outs.
The engineer, however will ask the person “well, what do you want it to do?” =)

Engineers tend to be better dancers, kissers, and dressers. Engineers are more romantic.

Actually, like mentioned above, engineers use science for practical purposes. Scientists study nature.

I’ve spent most of my adult life in the area where applied science and engineering overlap. Basically what I do is use scientific methods and tools to help engineers solve their problems.

I’ve noticed a tendency of engineers when posing hypotheses for failures that they will tend to propose things for which they can supply The Quick and Easy Fix even if this leads to some tortuous logic in explaining in the failure. Given a hammer, everything becomes a nail. Where I hope I help out is in showing things for what they are, not what someone hopes they might be out of convenience!

@fearofsleep Lolz. Regarding jokes, there is the famous one that goes – Someone asks if the glass is half empty or full….the optimist says it’s half full, the pessimist half empty, the engineer twice as large as it needs to be. I think the scientist would empty the contents of the glass, pour it into a beaker, and compare its volume to that of the capacity of the glass. I think in engineering in practice a lot of times you end up following prescribed methods, because when you deviate and try something new/unfamiliar/untried you expose yourself to greater risk of litigation.

@hiphiphopflipflapflop Interesting observation. I don’t think this is unique to engineers, or typical of all engineers. I think it is a result of a natural human tendency to develop tunnel vision and see only what one knows. Anyone that is capable of maintaining objectivity and an open mind should be able to ID all alternatives, but perhaps scientists tend to be better at this. I’m really not sure. I’v seen both sides of the coin in both groups.

An engineer will do what it takes to make things work. A scientist is willing to put in the time to figure out why.

I remember a joke about engineers and mathematicians that is kind of applicable to scientists.

An engineer and a mathematician are asked to find a way of lifting a heavy object to the top of a hill. They each build a similar pulley device. Then they are asked to find a way of transferring the object from the top of one mountain to the top of another 100 feet away. The engineer builds a clothesline type device between the two mountains. The mathematician thinks about this for a while and then throws the object down the mountain. “We know how to solve that problem.”

@LostInParadise
When Isaac Newton was asked why planets move around the sun in ellipses and not circles, he did not throw a rock down a mountain. He went and invented differential and integral calculus (in parallel to Leibniz)

If you need something done, ask an engineer.
If you want to talk about it, ask a scientist.

@ragingloli , The joke is more applicable to mathematicians. One trick in doing proofs is to arrange things so that an already proved theorem will handle the work. The phrase “as we have already shown” is fairly common.

A simplistic example. Define a geometry that works only with points and lines and has one axiom, that two points determine exactly one line. The only theorem of interest that can be proved is that two lines intersect in at most one point, else the two points would determine two lines.

Now show that pairs of real numbers and linear equations act as a model of the simple geometry, by proving that there is exactly one linear equation equation containing two distinct real number pairs. If we want to show that two equations have at most one simultaneous solution, I can say that we already proved that, by applying the lone theorem of the simple geometry.

@wallabies It’s actually quite normal. It’s how Wikipedia does it, while also noting your usage. That’s why I asked.