Engineers and woo

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(How engineers think)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
An '''engineer''' is a professional trained in engineering; the design and construction of devices or other works. They put [[science]] into practice, designing the stuff that makes civilization.
 
An '''engineer''' is a professional trained in engineering; the design and construction of devices or other works. They put [[science]] into practice, designing the stuff that makes civilization.
  
Most engineers are very reasonable people, as sensible as anyone. But engineers as a group have a noted, and indeed ''quantified'', tendency to pontificate on things well outside their area of expertise, to the point of actual fallacy.
+
Most engineers are as sensible and reasonable as anyone. But engineers as a group have a noted, and indeed ''quantified'', tendency to pontificate on things well outside their area of expertise, to the point of actual fallacy.
  
 
This phenomenon is so prevalent that users of [[talk.origins]] have coined the phrase [[Salem Hypothesis]], which predicts that any creationist claiming scientific expertise or advanced degrees is likely to be an engineer.<ref>Myers, P. Z. (2006, Feb 22) [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/the_salem_hypothesis.php The Salem hypothesis]. ''Pharyngula''.</ref> This does not mean that engineers are likely to be creationists, of course.
 
This phenomenon is so prevalent that users of [[talk.origins]] have coined the phrase [[Salem Hypothesis]], which predicts that any creationist claiming scientific expertise or advanced degrees is likely to be an engineer.<ref>Myers, P. Z. (2006, Feb 22) [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/the_salem_hypothesis.php The Salem hypothesis]. ''Pharyngula''.</ref> This does not mean that engineers are likely to be creationists, of course.

Revision as of 11:45, 3 August 2010

Goddidit!

Creationism

Icon creationism.svg
Key claims
Science
Random articles

Truth fish transparent.png

An engineer is a professional trained in engineering; the design and construction of devices or other works. They put science into practice, designing the stuff that makes civilization.

Most engineers are as sensible and reasonable as anyone. But engineers as a group have a noted, and indeed quantified, tendency to pontificate on things well outside their area of expertise, to the point of actual fallacy.

This phenomenon is so prevalent that users of talk.origins have coined the phrase Salem Hypothesis, which predicts that any creationist claiming scientific expertise or advanced degrees is likely to be an engineer.[1] This does not mean that engineers are likely to be creationists, of course.

Contents

How engineers think

Engineers are not scientists and they are not mathematicians. They are engineers. Every other field of knowledge is raw material that is interesting insofar as it is useful raw material for engineering.

The vast majority of engineers are perfectly reasonable geeks who are fans of science and mathematics even though those fields are not at all what they do, but respecting science is not in any way a requirement of the job. Engineers can get away with all manner of gibbering delusion as long as they stuff they design still works.

Even most engineer cranks don't usually take it as far as electronic engineer Andrew Schlafly does in questioning the validity of the concept of complex numbers - but this is a difference of degree, not of kind.

Religious conservatism

Engineers are measurably more politically conservative than scientists, other educated people, or the general populace. A 1972 study[2] showed professors of engineering describing themselves as "deeply religious" and "strongly conservative" more than those in any other field. Applying the same analysis to data gathered in 1984 found 46% of male American engineers describing themselves as both conservative and religious, compared with 22% of scientists.

Creationism

Many prominent figures in the creationism movement are or have been engineers, for example, Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research.[3] A possible explanation for this is that creationists single out their engineers in an attempt to pull off argumentum ad verecundiam, and they haven't many in their ranks more reputable than an engineer.

When petitions have been sent out that say "these people reject evolution" the majority aren't qualified biologists or cosmologists but of completely different professions, such as engineering.[4]

Terrorism

Similarly to creationists, there is anecdotal evidence of a disproportionate number of terrorists being engineers.[5] In one paper that did the numbers[6], nearly 60 percent of Islamic terrorists (even those raised in the West) had engineering backgrounds. And even corrected for demographics, the numbers are disproportionate.

Engineers out of their depth in other ways

Hypotheses

  • Everyone believes their own speciality is the true creator of objective value in society. Engineers are no exception.
  • The socially inept naturally try to think around the problem of human interaction, and so are susceptible to falling for things that sound good if they have an utter lack of understanding of the area. This is the human interaction version of pseudoscience. (Hence the Ayn Rand casualties.)
  • Smart people have the intellect to fool themselves much more convincingly than stupid people do.

Footnotes

  1. Myers, P. Z. (2006, Feb 22) The Salem hypothesis. Pharyngula.
  2. Everett Carll Ladd, Jr. and Seymour Martin Lipset The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics
  3. Patterson, J. W. (1982). An engineer looks at the creationist movement. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 89(2), 55-58.
  4. This isn't "elitism"; these are the people who you'd expect to have studied the evidence in great detail. People wouldn't argue that someone with no formal law training is equally qualified to make a prosecution or defence? Right?
  5. Build-a-Bomber: Why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees? (Benjamin Popper, Slate, 2009-12-29)
  6. Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog, "Engineers of Jihad" (PDF)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support