So the scientists keep saying but is it true? What engineer used the “science” of locking beagles in cages to have flies eat off their face? What bridge did that study help build? Or what about the study about why fat chicks can’t laid. How did that help engineers build the power grid? What about the studies where “muh scientists” feed cocaine to different animals to see how they react? I’m sure that one was super helpful when engineers were designing the iPhone.
Face it dude, we’ve been duped by academic assholes in white lab coats. It was engineers the whole time building this shit and wormy little scientists swooping in to take all the credit.
This not entirely true. The core of a mechanical engineer's blueprint is the material; the material makeup is completely scientific.
Who conducts all of the additives for automotive?
Who tests the additives and oils for effectiveness?
Who tests our water?
Who laid out the standards for our drinking water?
Let's not squash it entirely.
The scientific method is still valid, but as an annointed group of social authorities, “scientist” is a magic spell word without meaning. Like I say, when do you ever see an engineer on FAKE NEWS talking a bunch of bullshit and promoting hysteria? But there have been thousands of “scientists” who do that. When do you ever hear, “Trust the Engineering”? But you hear, “Trust the Science” all the time. What Science? And by who? That doesn’t matter. Just trust “the Science”.
To me, “engineer” is to “scientist” like “reporter” is to “journalist”. We know what an “engineer” does - he invents and builds - but what does a “scientist” do? Just vague, abstract science things. And we know what a “reporter” does - he researches and reports current events - but what does a “journalist” do? He... journals? Think about how that word “journalist” gave reporters permission to become activist opinion bloggers. In their eyes, that’s what a “journalist” should do. “Journal” their personal feelings about current events.
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you; what you wrote here is valid. I agree our educational studies and practices are tainted with malevolence and communist tactics. I just think it was too much of a blanket statement you made and that some science still has its' place.
Fair enough. I am intentionally being extra harsh on scientists to break the magic spell of their unquestionable authority. This would not be necessary if they did not weaponize the word “Science”. If they want to do that, then I am going to work to destroy the credibility and authority of that word. Obviously the scientific method, when practiced in good faith, continues to be valid. But I am not going to let them turn a method into an “ist” either. “Science” is too vague. If we make them specify and say things like, “Trust the chemistry” or “Trust the biology”, then the magic spell already starts to splinter and sound ridiculous. My comments are not directed at people who are genuinely working the scientific method to achieve practical results. If anything, those people should start identifying with their specific scientific discipline and not this nebulous definition of The Science. True chemists and biologists and physicists should also be equally against the fraudster academics and their bullshit corporate-funded studies and experiments. If you are doing legit work, and another dude who watches beagles get their face eaten off by flies claims he and you are the same, you should reject that too.
So the scientists keep saying but is it true? What engineer used the “science” of locking beagles in cages to have flies eat off their face? What bridge did that study help build? Or what about the study about why fat chicks can’t laid. How did that help engineers build the power grid? What about the studies where “muh scientists” feed cocaine to different animals to see how they react? I’m sure that one was super helpful when engineers were designing the iPhone.
Face it dude, we’ve been duped by academic assholes in white lab coats. It was engineers the whole time building this shit and wormy little scientists swooping in to take all the credit.
This not entirely true. The core of a mechanical engineer's blueprint is the material; the material makeup is completely scientific. Who conducts all of the additives for automotive? Who tests the additives and oils for effectiveness? Who tests our water? Who laid out the standards for our drinking water? Let's not squash it entirely.
The scientific method is still valid, but as an annointed group of social authorities, “scientist” is a magic spell word without meaning. Like I say, when do you ever see an engineer on FAKE NEWS talking a bunch of bullshit and promoting hysteria? But there have been thousands of “scientists” who do that. When do you ever hear, “Trust the Engineering”? But you hear, “Trust the Science” all the time. What Science? And by who? That doesn’t matter. Just trust “the Science”.
To me, “engineer” is to “scientist” like “reporter” is to “journalist”. We know what an “engineer” does - he invents and builds - but what does a “scientist” do? Just vague, abstract science things. And we know what a “reporter” does - he researches and reports current events - but what does a “journalist” do? He... journals? Think about how that word “journalist” gave reporters permission to become activist opinion bloggers. In their eyes, that’s what a “journalist” should do. “Journal” their personal feelings about current events.
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you; what you wrote here is valid. I agree our educational studies and practices are tainted with malevolence and communist tactics. I just think it was too much of a blanket statement you made and that some science still has its' place.
Fair enough. I am intentionally being extra harsh on scientists to break the magic spell of their unquestionable authority. This would not be necessary if they did not weaponize the word “Science”. If they want to do that, then I am going to work to destroy the credibility and authority of that word. Obviously the scientific method, when practiced in good faith, continues to be valid. But I am not going to let them turn a method into an “ist” either. “Science” is too vague. If we make them specify and say things like, “Trust the chemistry” or “Trust the biology”, then the magic spell already starts to splinter and sound ridiculous. My comments are not directed at people who are genuinely working the scientific method to achieve practical results. If anything, those people should start identifying with their specific scientific discipline and not this nebulous definition of The Science. True chemists and biologists and physicists should also be equally against the fraudster academics and their bullshit corporate-funded studies and experiments. If you are doing legit work, and another dude who watches beagles get their face eaten off by flies claims he and you are the same, you should reject that too.