Reminder that engineering is NOT a science. The purpose of engineering

engineers do research too. dumdum

>>8541640
The intention of the research is value.

>>8541645
>the purpose of engineering is to construct something of improving human life in some way
>acknowledges engineers do research, then implies that it is of no value

OP confirmed for transhumanist faggot.
>sage goes in all fields

The problem is, your presenting a false dichotomy.

You say the end goal of engineering is value, not science. You then fail to posit what science is. Meaning that we must defend a negative.

So then the reader is left to assume that something can either be "value" or "not value", which means that science must fall under not value, when there is much of science that is in fact value as such.


Come back when you aren't a brainlet.

Also, I'd argue that's not what engineering is.

I'd argue engineering is something that improves a system. As there are examples of engineering do not have an impact on "human life".

Improving a system. That improvement can be measured, in which experiments on hypotheses of that measurement will change based on an independent variable.

Thats fucking science m8.

>>8541654

I didn't imply it had no value retard, I said its output is value (human value not objectivity). Hence it's not scientific, though it uses scientific knowledge.

>>8541688
>if it serves a practical purpose then it isn't science!!1!1!!1

>>8541676

The definition of science is the attainment of objectivity - knowledge stripped of value. The fact that value can be applied to scientific knowledge doesn't contradict this defintion.

>>8541689

Go outside and take a breath of fresh air baby, you're losing it.

>>8541689

That's applied science - something entirely different from science itself.

>>8541635

It uses the scientific method therefore it is science. Your tacked on philosophy is redundant.

>>8541730
So medicine is a science? It uses knowledge acquired through the scientific method, hence it's science. Right??

>>8541737

Yes.

>>8541635
Daily reminder that scientists get regularly BTFO by some guy in a shed doing """""stupid""""" experiments.

>>8541738
First semester of medicine you'll be told medicine isn't a science.
How is listening to the subjective feelings of a patient in any way scientific?

>>8541747

You can be told anything. It's arbitrary categorization.

Medicine isn't just listening to what your patient says.

>>8541749
>Medicine isn't just listening to what your patient says.

No it isn't - it's a combination of many different things and it's primary goal is to make people healthier, which is not a science. Making people "healthier" is not a scientific category. Sure it requires scientific knowledge, but that knowledge is applied to the realm of values and subjectivity.

>>8541654
>acknowledges engineers do research, then implies that it is of no value
Are all engineers this dumb is or that just a meme?

>>8541635
>>8541789
Samefag

If you're not coming up with imaginary particles to explain your lack of understanding then you're not a scientist.

>>8541640
this

>>8541784

Again, as I've said before: it's considered a science since it uses and applies the scientific method. Everything else you stated is arbitrary categorization. Formal science, applied science, natural science etc. are terms that exist just to categorize and differentiate vast fields of science.

Use a different argument to feel superior.

>>8541784
The goal of something does not determine the method. How can one person make such grand claims about something and know so little?


If medicines goal is health, but uses science to improve its method, then implicitly medicine is a scientific discipline.

To be a strict scientist would be impossible by your logic, as it would only be mathematical philosophy defining itself.


Science is a tool, not a discipline

>>8541792
Nope.
/sci/ really is full of undergrad plebs that haven't even read the wiki page on the philosophy of science.

>>8541819
Scientific*

Not mathematical, although that would be the realm you were headed towards

>>8541819
>If medicines goal is health, but uses science to improve its method, then implicitly medicine is a scientific discipline.

No it isn't. "Health" is a value laden and largely subjective category.

>Science is a tool, not a discipline
Science is a method for understanding existence objectively - stripping existence of all subjective human value and describing how it actually is

>>8541835
>a method
So a tool, nice semantics.

>no it isnt. Health is value laden
Okay, so the demarcation between discipline and goal oriented subject area is the issue.

I fully agree that the goals of health are value based, the problem is that the discipline "medicine" has the goal of improving our "health", which is intrinsicly linked to improving formal knowledge.

You can improve a system with old information, but largely medicine is using the goal of human health as a reason to use science in that field.

Im not saying all engineers are scientists, in saying some that use science in order to improve their engineering are. That's why the field " engineering science" is taught at top ten uni's. Because the historic line between eng and sci has thinned in some areas(I'm not saying this proves, its an effect)

>>8541835
>Science is a method for understanding existence objectively - stripping existence of all subjective human value and describing how it actually is

Oh so you mean analytical philosophy.

>>8541701
Go read a book on what science actually is and how it was born please

>>8541635
Even if you were right it's a pretty insipid point to feel like you had to make, poor dummy