|
|
Post by Undecided on Dec 13, 2009 15:11:29 GMT -5
I was just recently introduced to the Salem Hypothesis: engineers are more likely to be creationists than other academics. I personally think that there could be some weight to this hypothesis: some of the engineering majors I have met at my school have shown a profound lack of interest in the scientific theories which govern their field as well as the methodology used to reach the conclusions. Any thoughts to the matter? |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Dec 13, 2009 15:29:41 GMT -5
Since when do you need a degree to be a sanitation engineer?
|
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Dec 13, 2009 15:38:47 GMT -5
Given that the vast majority of scientists that creationists cite are engineers trying to apply their knowledge to biology, I have to say I agree with the hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 13, 2009 15:50:37 GMT -5
I think the underlying reason is that engineers are used to working with designed systems, so they see design everywhere. Engineers also aren't used to discovering principles, just using known principles, whereas a scientist discovers them. Plus, what peanutfan said, they're dealing with a field they are not trained in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Dec 13, 2009 16:19:40 GMT -5
You'd think any good engineer would look at the things in this world and say that their design is horribly flawed. We're collections of shoddy repair work and duct tape, not masterful, perfect creations. Creationists like to talk about complexity like it's a miracle of life, while it's more of a detrimental byproduct, since complexity leads to more chances for dysfunction, especially in cases where a simpler system can achieve comparable results.
So, I don't really know why engineers are more likely to be creationists than other scientists, except that perhaps their field of study is less likely to challenge religious belief. Nothing in engineering contradicts the idea of a purposefully created universe, so they're less likely to have their beliefs shattered by what they learn in the course of their studies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 13, 2009 16:53:02 GMT -5
I'm just not sure why we are talking about quantum flavors. And I am now picturing an engineer licking himself like the below lolcat.  |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Dec 13, 2009 17:57:50 GMT -5
Scientists explore and discover (usually by finding new and interesting ways to break stuff), and question everything. Engineers, on the other hand, use the scientists' findings to make new tools ( in a broad sense), and any questioning being done is for the application of the scientific findings, not the scientific findings themselves. Thus, when presented with a false world view (whatever it might be), a scientist will immediately question the view, while an engineer will only question it once it is determined that said view conflicts with the creation of tools. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Dec 13, 2009 19:35:36 GMT -5
In the early 1900's my grandfather was an engineer on the Delaware-Lackawanna line. He ... What? Oh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 13, 2009 22:34:45 GMT -5
To add to the arguments presented, engineering is also more utilitarian than then most other fields of academics and therefore probably more attractive to non-intellectual types.
|
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Dec 14, 2009 1:49:33 GMT -5
It'd be lovely if there were actually scientific verification of this idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 14, 2009 7:44:26 GMT -5
It's my experience that Engineer Majors tend to be dreadful drunks, at least at the University of Queensland. They also cheat at cards.
This may explain something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Dec 15, 2009 6:18:27 GMT -5
That's why they call it Engibeering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Dec 15, 2009 9:37:09 GMT -5
It's my experience that Engineer Majors tend to be dreadful drunks, at least at the University of Queensland. They also cheat at cards. This may explain something. Over here in Yankee Land, engineers tend to be the ones counting cards (just mention the letters 'M.I.T.' at any casino in Vegas, and watch how the casino personnel react  ). This would make them anti-creationists, however, since they're using their brains to win at Blackjack, contrary to the casino's strictly enforced message that "everyone should let God chance decide the outcome of our games". |
|
|
|
Post by sugarfreejazz on Dec 22, 2009 12:20:52 GMT -5
A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are given the task of finding how high a particular red rubber ball will bounce when dropped from a given height onto a given surface.
The mathematician derives the elasticity of the ball from its chemical makeup, derives the equations to determine how high it will bounce and calculates it.
The physicist takes the ball into the lab, measures its elasticity, and plugs the variables into a formula.
The engineer looks it up in his red rubber ball book.
|
|
abdul
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by abdul on Dec 29, 2009 19:02:41 GMT -5
I was just recently introduced to the Salem Hypothesis: engineers are more likely to be creationists than other academics. Any thoughts to the matter? Yeah, as an engineer I find that Salem Hypothesis personally offensive. A) All Engineers do have to have some sort of degree and CAN work as scientists, depending on their interests and field of occupation. There are also MD's working as scientists. B) A degree in engineering is not by itself a scientific credibility. Just because you know how to do statistics and transform ideas into concepts does not mean you understand the rule system behind the original idea. Same is true for MD's, again. Just because you know how to perform surgery does not say you understand the basics of the living matter. And actually in both cases you don't have to in order to do your job. |
|
).
