j********d
发帖数: 157 | 1 Another angle to look at Science vs Engineer:
Science is more of being the 1st - discover sth people never know before (
Newton's princples, genetic DNA, etc).
Engineer is more of optimization (of what we know we can do) to improve
efficiency, reduce cost, etc. Make a airplane, DNA sequencing of plasmid.
In between, as the 1st to do sth that demonstrate it is doable. The first
airplance, the first DNA sequencing of the very first plasmid, etc.
Using DNA as an example, the dsDNA in 1950's was clearly Science, which was
a revolution to human's knowledge, certainly deserve to be published on
Nature. Then, someone first figure out how to sequence a plasmid, again got
on Nature, but not the same impact as the dsDNA. After that, the DNA
sequencing of a plasmid got optimized so that a middle-school student can do
it after a few hours of training - and the work itself is nowhere to be
published.
That said, no one shall look down Engineer. The fact is that, if your
company do it fast and cheap than others, you certainly can make a lot of
money from DNA sequencing of plasmids! At the same time, the efficiency and
reduced cost support more scientific discovery. | z*h
发帖数: 773 | 2 Frankly speaking, I think that engineers look down to scientists. Most of
fundamental R&D is useless. A small fraction of fundamental breakthroughs
may have great impacts but most are achieved by engineers rather than
scientists. | j********d
发帖数: 157 | 3 That is naturally true - breakthroughs were rare and optimization were
everywhere. Even if there was a breakthrough, sometime it was great, but
not very useful. I think that is partially Engineer relatively easy to find
job, while Scientists are having a hard time. But a few breakthrough did
form the foundation, without these, many of the great engineer achievement
simply were impossible.
Like a trillion, 1000,000,000,000, if you think Science as the "1" in front,
and all engineer as the 12 "0" following it - both the 1 and the 0s are
important and hard to say who is more important than the other - tie. | k*****1
发帖数: 454 | 4 你这个比喻，如果“1”指的是牛顿和爱因斯坦这样的，那倒是不错，否则的话就是个
笑话了。
find
front,
【在 j********d 的大作中提到】
: That is naturally true - breakthroughs were rare and optimization were
: everywhere. Even if there was a breakthrough, sometime it was great, but
: not very useful. I think that is partially Engineer relatively easy to find
: job, while Scientists are having a hard time. But a few breakthrough did
: form the foundation, without these, many of the great engineer achievement
: simply were impossible.
: Like a trillion, 1000,000,000,000, if you think Science as the "1" in front,
: and all engineer as the 12 "0" following it - both the 1 and the 0s are
: important and hard to say who is more important than the other - tie.
| h********n
发帖数: 4079 | 5 engineering also more of larger scale.
was
【在 j********d 的大作中提到】
: Another angle to look at Science vs Engineer:
: Science is more of being the 1st - discover sth people never know before (
: Newton's princples, genetic DNA, etc).
: Engineer is more of optimization (of what we know we can do) to improve
: efficiency, reduce cost, etc. Make a airplane, DNA sequencing of plasmid.
:
: In between, as the 1st to do sth that demonstrate it is doable. The first
: airplance, the first DNA sequencing of the very first plasmid, etc.
: Using DNA as an example, the dsDNA in 1950's was clearly Science, which was
: a revolution to human's knowledge, certainly deserve to be published on
|
|
