The Sociology of Cosmology

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

And in any case, how many engineers v scientists.....and what are engineers doing making statements about a subject very few (if any) of them would have a good enough understanding of. It's much like a biologist telling a mechanical engineer that he's wrong about finite element analysis of stressed metals in gears. Next to no engineer works in a scientific field such as astronomy, and especially astrophysics/cosmology etc. They're not trained in that field to begin with. About the only connection they would have is in designing the mechanics for the instruments.....mountings, buildings etc. Or, if they were electrical engineers, they'd help design the instruments themselves. But that's as far as it goes. It's only the likes of Peratt and Scott who think they have some sort of unique insight that allows them to come over all "expert" about other fields they have little experience in.

Most Engineers are versed in classical Newtonian/Keplerian Physics - static, dynamics, etc. Others such as Electrical Engineers are also trained in classical sub-atomic physics: EM & particle theory, photonics, semi conductor physics, high voltage plasma physics, etc. Then there's signal processing theory topped up with pure and applied maths training including various data processing theory such as Fourier Analysis, z & Laplace transforms, etc. And that's just Undergraduate stuff.

Whilst this thread isn't about Scientist vs Engineers (been done at IIS before), I wouldn't dismiss the background or competence of Engineers who move into pure research and theoretical Science. Admittedly there's a learning curve but not one that's going to take long.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

I'm not saying they don't have good physics or maths training, they don't have the necessary astronomical theory behind them. If they went and did astrophysics, quantum mechanics, relativity etc etc, they could handle it, but that would mean another 18 months to 2 years of undergrad just for starters...or they could do a combined coursework/research masters degree to catch up with the undergrad stuff and to get the required research training, and then do a PhD. Your "joe average" engineer doesn't have the background to be able to do research in astrophysics/astronomy etc. Not until they do more study. Like yourself, if you wanted to really get into this, you'd need to do whatever bits of a BSc in Astronomy or Physics you needed to get the background (have your BE credited towards your BSc...you'd probably only need to do 18 months) at the very least, or a Masters before you went on further. Your Masters will take 2 years or so. Then it's your PhD, which is nominally 3 years. So, by the time you finish, you're 90 years old and $100K in debt

[renormalised (Carl)]

Then you spend the next 10 years paying everything off!!!

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I'm not saying they don't have good physics or maths training, they don't have the necessary astronomical theory behind them. If they went and did astrophysics, quantum mechanics, relativity etc etc, they could handle it, but that would mean another 18 months to 2 years of undergrad just for starters...or they could do a combined coursework/research masters degree to catch up with the undergrad stuff and to get the required research training, and then do a PhD. Your "joe average" engineer doesn't have the background to be able to do research in astrophysics/astronomy etc. Not until they do more study. Like yourself, if you wanted to really get into this, you'd need to do whatever bits of a BSc in Astronomy or Physics you needed to get the background (have your BE credited towards your BSc...you'd probably only need to do 18 months) at the very least, or a Masters before you went on further. Your Masters will take 2 years or so. Then it's your PhD, which is nominally 3 years. So, by the time you finish, you're 90 years old and $100K in debt

The cost and the net age at the end is the same, regardless of whether you pitch from a BSc or a BE.

Cheers
PS: The spin applied by the Perratts, Scotts, etc however, is the real issue.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Precisely, and it's spin that has little scientific basis, when you really take a close look at it. Like I said, he maybe an electrical engineer, but he's no astronomer or theoretical physicist.

[xelasnave]

What a neat thread...most enjoyable and entertaining.

We all like to put things in boxes and organize stuff to fit our beliefs etc. but it there any point to trying to box humans such that they fit our predetermined stereotypes.?

It may or may not suit reasonable purpose to define folk as belonging to one camp or the other however when one looks at the folk who have caused and driven change in science (and many other areas) I think the individual under scrutiny hardly fits into either of the boxes provided in the original post herein.

Often humans have a mix of qualities that makes quantifying their ability difficult..they may be intelligent but have terrible flaws such that you would not take them home to meet Mom... few humans are perfect and not subject to differences, as perceived by others, which may bring casual negative judgment.

Looking at all the great men thru history I think it would be hard to fit any of them in a box so as to label them this or that for they all are individuals with abilities and flaws that simply make them unique.... I for one refuse any box and find it somewhat a trivial approach.

AND qualification is subjective... I have no doubt that some would have ranked Dr A as a crackpot whereas others ranked him as the smartest man to date (that date and later no doubt)... who was he ...a man ...no greater or less than another ... he would have found the boxing of a human as distasteful as I find it to be.

The determination of folk to be the next Dr A on the one hand or to seek whatever recognition they deem relevant will always be a given... thats the human male thingy happening..simple... but such pointers to character are not relevant to the assessment of the correctness of their idea.... a smart man can have a bad idea and belief it worthy just as a stupid man can have a good idea and believe it irrelevant.

Men will always hunt the top gun for a show down and therefore in the area of science why should it be difficult to accept that anyone may wish to be better than the top gun of the business...it is silly but understandable given the nature of human males...

It takes all types and there is not enough boxes to differentiate the subtle differences that exist between humans.
AND so I find it quaint that even in science the argument is so often against the proponent of the idea and his character rather than the merit of the idea... so often folk attack the character of the person presenting a dubious idea rather than debate the issue upon its merit.

alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

It takes all types and there is not enough boxes to differentiate the subtle differences that exist between humans.
AND so I find it quaint that even in science the argument is so often against the proponent of the idea and his character rather than the merit of the idea... so often folk attack the character of the person presenting a dubious idea rather than debate the issue upon its merit.
alex

And so, recognising that's what humans do, would it not behoove the presenter of an idea to adapt their stance, (change their box), if not to at least appear as though they are agile enough to understand the stance of others, before soliciting their feedback or support for their ideas ?

I don't see that agility all that often from 'ideas men'.

And yet human BEings are able to BE anything they choose (and least intellectually, that is).

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Hi Craig I think you hint at the necessity to consider the politics and the presentation ... no doubt one would find it hard to act on professional advice if the giver of advice is unshaven poorly dressed and half drunk even if that advice would prove to be sound...also one must walk the walk and talk the talk fitting to the profession one represents... and so I think your comment valid.
Continue posting thought provoking and informative material.
alex