Talk:Engineers and woo/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 September 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Dogmatic start

"Besides designing things, engineers are especially susceptible to becoming creationists"

Ouch, please help me before it´s too late! Editor at CP 14:46, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, I've made it a bit less dogmatic. I trust the author of this stub will be stubbing the reds he created. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 15:16, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Terrorists, too

http://www.slate.com/id/2240157 - this is gold. It links the relevant papers directly, too. - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs a better title

"Engineers and woo"? Better title needed - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Scientists vs. Engineers"

Somewhat related article about scientists and engineers. The fourth paragraph appears to be most relevant. --ZooGuard (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This link is now dead. Any more info that it could be relocated?--WickerGuy (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Creationism

I shoved the details off into a footnote because the paragraph as it stands has very little to do with delusion in engineers, rather with delusion in creationists. It's a weird lump that doesn't quite belong there - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to dislike footnotes that are just clarifying text rather than links. However, I see what you mean about it being a little out of place in the wider context. That said, it's a very important clarification as if it's not addressed someone will bring it up. It probably wouldn't be as bad if the other sections were a bit more fleshed out but I can't see how you can get much more mileage out of this subject. ^narchist 12:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dilbert

I disagree that every engineer knows Dilbert is a documentary.

I assert that every engineer considers Dilbert to create a portrait far rosier than our grim reality actually is.

If you really want to understand what an engineer's life is like, watch a few "Roadrunner" cartoons. Wile E. Coyote is an engineer. And the Acme Corporation is wholly own subsidiary of Microsoft. MDB (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I struck out of electronic engineering around second year (it was the maths and material science that did for me), but your description is also that of being a sysadmin. (In my case Acme is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oracle now that they've bought Sun. Please kill me.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are now dead. Please lie down and cease having a pulse, and start to compost, per your request. 06:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is normal - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite bronze

Needs moar. What of, I'm not sure. Suggestions? - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's better than the "bronze" article I was editing earlier. What/where are the standards we use, anyway? I know they must be somewhere... do the colored brainz link to them? ħuman 02:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think in practice they're "looks good to me, not much objection" - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs better title. Engineers and pseudoscience? Or some such? "Woo" is not a common term in general parlance (see the talk page on it here...). ħuman 02:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nerds are nuts

[1] This looks pretty good as a hypothesis - that literalist nerds tend to assume too much and lack the blind spots most religious people have that keep their religions from eating their lives. Thoughts? - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an extremely ironic reply, but this expresses a similar sentiment. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably a better expression too. I'm sure someone will write it up (or I will if bored), this has the right combination of surface plausibility, a couple of references and potential for a few glib paragraphs to be just the thing - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is this: if you apply everything in the LW post to their views on the Singularity, it describes them perfectly. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They're quite nice really. EY is clearly a human, which is not so clear for some of his fans - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hypotheses" section

I killed it. All it is is JAQing off to blast engineers with no citations, sources, or anything of the like. It's about as embarrassing as one of Andy's essays where he just poses assholeish rhetorical questions for the sole purpose of grandstanding. It has no position in an actual, serious, bronze-level article- if it's so crucial to keep, just move it to Mystery: Why are engineers prone to woo?, or some such title that makes it clear it's just speculation. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here's the section I deleted:

Hypotheses

• Everyone believes their own specialty 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.

• Engineering is a more acceptable career path for intelligent kids from fundamentalist families than science - academia is seen as an atheistic, left-wing nest of villainy by many in the US. So a lot of people with a prior belief in silliness end up earning engineering degrees.

• Many historic engineering organizations and projects originated in the military, and thus may have begun with at least a mild authoritarian bent.

• Some woo-y ideas, such as religious fundamentalism, may be "rational" covers for deeply held irrational ideas. That is, as daft as creationism is, it may seem more internally consistent than attempting to reconcile common descent with Christianity. A bizarre conspiracy theory or pseudoscience may be a superficially consistent alternative to irrationally asserting "X is wrong because it makes me uncomfortable". Reasoning correctly upon false premises turns a simple little bit of garbage in, into a lot of complex garbage out. While this can affect both scientists and engineers, scientists are more frequently encouraged to research, test, or challenge basic premises, and may be more familiar with the best ways of doing so.

Discussion

Reinserting the bit I deleted for reference. Talk goes below here. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Sometimes we get carried away, I guess. ħuman 02:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Theemperor's deletion. That section was sub-par for RationalWiki. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 02:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a relevant question, though the above-discussed reference provides a more useful reference. Speaking of which, did you notice you'd broken references in the article? - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Exclusively US phenomenon

This is an exclusively US phenomenon, which does not apply to engineers in general:

Unlike academic and student engineers in the US, occupationally defined the

engineers in the 16 countries are less religious than other graduates (at p<0.01). In most of the developed world, as one would expect, a technical education seems to go

along with a secular worldview.

Gambetta and Hertog, Engineers of Jihad, p.56.

The “16 countries” are Australia, West Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Philippines, Israel, Spain, France, Cyprus, Portugal, Denmark and Switzerland. ^{— Unsigned, by: 75.36.166.97 / talk / contribs}

That only speaks for those 16 countries. CMI has recently been trumpeting the fancy credentials of a creationist engineering professor in the U.K. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What about engineers doing research?

My view of engineering is probably skewed by being a grad student at university, but what distinguishes engineers doing research from scientists? It seems to me that if you are designing a circuit to use less power while providing the same functionality as a different circuit, you have completed the steps of the scientific method. You have made an observation: this uses more power than I think it needs; a hypothesis e.g. this circuit has a transistor turned on unnecessarily; a prediction: turning this transistor off will reduce the power drawn; an experiment: fabricate the new circuit and test it compared to the old one; and reproduction: have others try the same circuit in their work. Further, there is also falsifiability: the new circuit may use more power than the old circuit, or keeping the transistor on all the time may not affect the power consumption at all. Also, there are controls to help eliminate external influences: you can move the circuit around and see what effect it has on power. You can even do double-blind tests by having the researcher attempt to determine whether a graph of power consumption is from his new circuit or the old circuit. Is my view of engineering atypical due to being at a research university, or is this not done with typical engineering research, or is it something else entirely? Imarcuson (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear how your point relates to the article or to a small but noteworthy proportion of engineers going off the epistemological deep end. Sane people stay in the sane pool - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am asking for clarification about the first two sentences of How engineers think: "Engineers are not scientists and they are not mathematicians. They are engineers." The engineers (defined as professors with engineering degrees) at my university in my department seem to be scientists, inasmuch as they seem to be practicing science. This observation is in contradiction to the aforementioned sentences. Thus, I must conclude that they are not doing science, that just doing science is not a sufficient qualification for being a scientist, that the professors are not engineers, or that the aforementioned sentences are incomplete. Imarcuson (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I wrote those and I was generalising. Almost all engineers are not professors of engineering. I have added a footnote "except when, of course, they also are." - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I like that phrasing. It points out the difference between them and indicates that the two are not mutually exclusive. Imarcuson (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Another similar page

Those Who Can, Teach. Those Who Can't, Do. I'm not sure how to integrate it in the article at the moment, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice one. I must note that professors of engineering generally do okay for cash - they are vastly popular for consulting, particularly as expert witnesses. Certainly ridiculously better than liberal arts professors - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctors

In terms of woo, do people think that doctors (as in physicians) are closer to engineers or scientists? I can't decide. ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.171.245.61 / talk / contribs}

It depends on how you define "doctor;" if one included all the quacks petty and defrocked, they would be closer to the engineers. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on the doctor (if you mean MDs). Some might be scientists, others just well-paid engineers. ħuman 06:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

AAPS. 'Nuff said. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ladd/Lipset study

It is titled PROFESSORS AND POLITICS and the sentence that cites it only mentions professors. The next sentence is uncited. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not able to read that the 1972 study says what it is alleged, but I am prepared to assume that the person who wrote this (Mark Gall) has read it, or at least a secondary source citing it. On the other hand, there is no citation for the 1984 sample so I think a fact tag there is appropriate. --Damo^Hi 08:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I put fact-tags on both "other educated people" and "the general populace," which the study does not address. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Overkill perhaps? ħuman 08:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Better. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WickerGuy edits

I'm still not fond of this section, which have already been removed once. It's a big pile of TL;DR at the start of the article & says not very much about actual engineers. I've removed the Conan Doyle quote which relates to forensics not engineering. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm, the whole (implicit) point of the Conan Doyle quote is that forensics is just the opposite of the kind of forward/pragmatic/instrumental thinking engineers do, but quite similar to the deductive/epistemic reasoning that biologists do. However, without more tie-in text, the connection may not be sufficiently clear.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be little more than random bloviating about engineers in general from the perspective of not understanding them and not wanting to- and has very little relation to what happens when they go off the rails, which is, as the article notes, when engineers go weird. It is entirely unclear why you are telling us all of this - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I baleeted it again. It may have a place in the article, way down and better done, but what I read explained nothing about anything. ħuman 02:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll let it rest, but in some ways I think my edits simply expanded on what is implied already in the remaining text. The text already says "Engineers care about results in the real world, and get these results..... Engineers can get away with all manner of gibbering delusion as long as the stuff they design still works." Personally I thought I was simply expanding on this in a more precise way, and backed up with some citations which the old version has absolutely none of.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, we have noted the Salem hypothesis without much of an attempt to explain it.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is better than noting it with a speculative pseudopsychobabble attempt to explain it. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree that my edits were highly speculative, and even worse came from sources not really trying to explain the Salem hypothesis! However, to use both "pseudo" and "babble" seems a bit redundant. I think the hypothesis being put forward was straightforward and easy to understand. It was indirectly inspired by a presentation at Skepticon which touched on the differences between epistemic reasoning (used to figure out what is out there) and instrumental reasoning (pertaining to the most effective use of tools as means to achieve a result). These are actually formal terms in philosophy, not psychology. But multiple observers have suggested that while lots of engineers are good at both, they are trained mainly to excel in the latter, and I would note the kind scientific inquiry underlying the discoveries of Darwin, Einstein, etc. is very much the former (epistemic). "babble" suggests something meaningless and murky. I don't think anything I posted here so qualifies.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't look very much like letting it rest. What are you looking for? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this was on WP for a while then gone

Wikipedia's article on Salem hypothesis was twice nominated for deletion and succeeded the second time (on the grounds there has been no rigorous testing, etc.). Deletion discussion/debate is here. [2].--WickerGuy (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So what? That doesn't validate or invalidate the hypothesis; it's just trivia. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I make no claim that it validates or invalidates anything. However, the delete discussion does note that the hypothesis has never been rigorously reviewed one way or the other- only been the subject of informal bulletin board discussions, which is why it failed WP's notability guidelines. That I think is interesting. It indicates work could be done which hasn't been.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For people's interest, here is the discussion relating to the deletion of the article. I think some very good points were made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salem_hypothesis#Salem_hypothesis 2.217.128.170 (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Correlation vs causation, percentile of engineers whom are cranks vs percentile of cranks whom are engineers.

It may be that among the cranks, those whom are engineers, tend to have much higher visibility.

Take for example Eliezer Yudkowsky and his AI risk / foom / etc stuff. If he had any engineering accomplishments, he would have had far more credibility, and far better visibility (Ray Kurzweil does). A lot of mathematicians, physicists, and the like, go very cranky as well; the article does not present any actual data why engineers would have larger percentile of crankiness, and seem to confuse the percentile of cranks that are engineers, with tendency of engineers to crankery.

There are far more engineers than there are scientists, and it is to be expected that of the notable cranks whom can make something even remotely technically plausible, the majority would be engineers. I have impression that this article does not even make any distinction between P(crank|engineer) and P(engineer|crank). Maybe you need more bayesianism, ha ha. Dmytry (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Salem hypothesis is utterly bizarre to me. I haven't met in person a creationist engineer, and some of the strongest arguments against any form of intelligent design, are from the engineering view point; I always thought that for engineer to claim that human body is a product of divine engineering would be to claim that god is a complete moron. Dmytry (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop saying "whom". Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Has rationalwiki lost the plot?

This article is approximately 10% as bad as the average Conservapedia article. That means it is very, very bad. I would try to improve it, but I'm not sure anything beyond deletion would really do the job. Why not have "Engineers and rape", "Engineers and obesity" and a "Gallery of obese Engineers" while we're at it? 2.217.128.170 (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hwa? Тy^talk 03:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the whole 'Terrorism' section is daft and not a particularly insightful observation. Nor is it proper evidence. The 'Null Hypothesis' section is a rambling mess. Other sections essentially imply that the majority of engineers are incapable of properly comprehending science.

"...Every other field of knowledge is interesting insofar as it is useful raw material for engineering. Engineers care about..." I find science interesting without requiring it be 'useful raw material'. Not all engineers care about the same things.

The reference to 'Engineers and -blank-' make sense if you go visit Conservapedia (actually, don't) and see the articles 'Atheists and Rape', 'Gallery of obese atheists' etc. My point is this article is a horrible jumble of mostly mindless generalisations and over-interpreting of some pretty poor research. I don't have an axe to grind here, I'm neither religious, conservative, a terrorist or a poor scientist and useless mathematician. I just think this article is a mess. I can't be the only person with this opinion on RationalWiki?? 2.217.128.170 (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Engineers and woo" can be revised and better sourced. Also, we do probably need an article on "Sexism in engineering," which is extensively documented and endemic. Blue (pester) 03:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a pretty decent article, and some BONs are whinging for no good reason? Also, perhaps you could "write" it since you are such a genius. Also, perhaps you could get over yourself. ħuman 03:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Following was written before Human's message: I think 'Engineers and woo' could be renamed to something more appropriate. Actually - given the article on the Salem hypothesis (which reads a little better), do we need a separate article? I also consider Engineering and Science to be entirely cognate disciplines. Although the article is not stating that Engineers tend to be creationist morons who think they're scientists, I think that is how it comes across in parts.

Agreed with Sexism in engineering. There is also sexism in physical science (I have personally noticed significantly less in biological science, though!). I think it is difficult to quantify though. I am a minority in my research group, as a male.

Addendum for Human: Not sure what the personal attacks are for. Calm down. Never said I was a genius. Why would I rewrite an article I consider to have little purpose? Are you genuinely telling me that this is a worthwhile, informative article? It doesn't say anything the Salem hypothesis article doesn't state, more clearly.

Not sure what a BON is. Based on your conceited and nasty response I presume it isn't a compliment. I think you need to learn to have a discussion without having to attack people you do not know. 2.217.128.170 (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, 'Bunch of Numbers'. I don't see the relevance. You're a bunch of letters. This isn't a social network and I don't see any requirement to have a username? Anyway, let's not descend into an irrelevant argument. 2.217.128.170 (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't be alarmed, his personal attacks were directed at me, not you, except the bit about "BONs whinging." Blue (is useful) 04:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Blue, shut up. They were not personal since a BON is not a user. And they were directed at 2.217 etc. If there is a better article let us merge them and redirect, not wreck this one with tendentious editing. ħuman 04:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they were deeply hurtful attacks. Just not particularly nice, nor useful comments. There is not much point in talk pages if you can't "whinge" about an article of questionable quality.

I am also sorry for the edits. I was just trying to make a point. Engineers can be scientists, and vice versa. And both can be mathematicians. The type of thinking employed here is extremely compartmentalised. It is all the search for new knowledge! 2.217.128.170 (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Computer Engineer

Wow, what a load of rambling bollox. So I'm likely to be a creationtard and/or a Jihadist??? RW really has gone bat shit insane! This article wouldn't look out of place on CW. Does RationalWiki have an inferiority complex towards us engineers? ComputerEngineer (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"This does not mean that engineers are likely to be creationists, of course." Sixth sentence of the article. -- Nx / talk 12:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"This phenomenon is so prevalent that users of talk.origins have come up with the Salem Hypothesis, which predicts that any creationist claiming scientific expertise or advanced degrees is likely to be an engineer." RW used to be good, but now it has become the very thing it claims to fight. ComputerEngineer (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"[creationist] likely to be an engineer" is different from "engineer likely to be a creationist". Do I need to draw you a Venn diagram? Though this article does make the same mistake.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not.

ComputerEngineer, try reading our article on confusion of the inverse. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Biologists & Cosmologists

In the creationism section, it states: "When petitions have been sent out that say "these scientists reject evolution", the majority aren't qualified biologists or cosmologists but are from completely unrelated professions..." - I might be being silly here, but what is the relationship between cosmologists and evolution? I don't understand how a cosmologist has any more insight into evolution than an astrophysicist or electronic engineer?

I think the evidence here is at least a little bit weak. I have never met a creationist engineer. I do know deeply religious mathematicians though. 2.217.128.170 (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of creationism, the origin of species blends into the origin of the universe, hence cosmology. Also, creationists tend to call every peice of science with which they disagree 'evolution' or 'evolutionary.' Peter ^{This is not my first temporal anomaly} 04:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So we are obviously dealing with a classic troll here. Blue likes it, though, since it disagrees with me. ħuman 04:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense Peter. However, the quote is "rejects evolution", not "accepts creationism" (and makes no mention of big bang/origins in cosmological terms). A cosmologist has no more authority than anyone else when it comes to evolution and its 'rejection'. In my experience not all biologists are experts, or even particularly knowledgeable on, evolution. Perhaps it should just be "not evolutionary biologists"? 2.217.128.170 (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The rhetoric in the creationism/evolution debate goes into cosmology quite frequently, actually, vis-a-vis the cosmological preconditions for the evolution of life. Blue (pester) 04:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh I don't dispute that one bit. My point is, in the quoted sentence, it states reject evolution. This part of the article is not mentioning cosmology or the big bang, and rejecting evolution has nothing to do with the big bang - regardless of how related it undeniably is to our origins ultimately. I acknowledge that in ID/creationism, biology and cosmology become curiously merged, but that still doesn't enable cosmologists to reject evolution any more authoritatively than anyone else. 2.217.128.170 (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Spotlight fallacy

This article is essentially an example of a spotlight fallacy. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying up front, "this isn't well supported by evidence and maybe a bit bullshit, but it has been noticed that..." Rather than trying to put together a post hoc defence full of antedotes ala Ken. Pi 3:14 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is that it is confused about its thesis. There is a difference between "engineers are more likely to be cranks (presumably, compared to other fields)" and "cranks who claim expertise tend to be engineers" (the Salem hypothesis). Being a wiki article, different parts of it are written by different authors who have different ideas what the thesis is... The original version was supposed to support the latter thesis, as far as I can recall.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Some minor issues (probably)

First of all, I can't make heads nor tails of the following in the null hypothesis section:

"The null hypothesis is that engineers are approximately as prone to woo as other people of comparable educational level. If the null hypothesis is true, it should be expected that among the creationists who can claim advanced degrees (other than theology), the majority are engineers, just as the majority of the people with advanced degrees are engineers or can be described as engineers."

Does anybody else think that this is confusing in its present formulation? If not, could you explain what in the world is being said here? I had to wiki 'null hypothesis' to make any sense of it at all, and still am not quite sure what is being said. I would propose a re-write if I had any idea of how...

Secondly, the religious conservatism section makes blanket statements about engineers and backs these up with very US-centric studies. (The first study was behind a sign-up trial, so I'm not completely sure, but I got the impression it was US-centric, correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps the wording of the article should make sure to clarify that the claims are US-centric? Nullahnung (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I wrapped a wikilink around null hypothesis, if that helps. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought about it a little more and now it makes more sense. I should add that probably the most confusing bit of the sentence is ", just as", which is staggeringly bad writing and I think I'm going to change it to either ". This is because" or ", since". Nullahnung (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"just as" works for me, but perhaps "since" would be clearer. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't make much sense of it either, even after the edit. Rewrite, anyone? - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Engineering student, wanted to add a perspective (engineering education)

Hello RW, long time reader, first time writing.

As you might infer from my handle, I study electrical and electronics engineering and am currently finishing up my sophomore year. Engineering in general has a stereotype for attracting more than its fair share of oddballs but EE really takes the cake (I am embarrassed to share a similar degree to Andrew Schlafly) and I'd like to add a few thoughts as to why, as well as to consider why conservatives seem to be attracted to engineering more than other areas of academia.

First, engineers and pseudoscience. The reasons for this have already been discussed: engineers receive a sound but relatively basic education in the sciences, usually 3 semesters of physics and one or two of chemistry by requirement (This can change depending on the field). However, an engineer in the workforce often does not necessarily need a broad working knowledge of science, depending on the job the engineer may use only a few specialized applied areas or possibly even none at all beyond introductory kinematics. A certain kind of engineer (this is by no means usual!) can see that his education in college makes him more educated about science than the general population. While this is true, some take this and start to feel they are experts qualified to discuss science as much as real scientists. It doesn't help that to most people, anyone wearing a lab coat is a scientific authority.

Another possibility is the difference in attitude between engineers and true scientists: scientists are concerned with what actually is, and engineers are concerned with what could be. A stubborn personality is common among engineers, and usually that's a good thing because it enables them to keep trying on potentially very difficult problems. Sometimes though, it's a very bad thing when an engineer knows (as has been joked around my department by the more science-minded engineering students) "More engineering than science" and becomes convinced that the problem of free energy can be solved with just a few clever tricks and tweaks and some math they sort of remember from elementary quantum mechanics.

Second, engineers and conservatives. Engineering is unique among the educated fields and in academia in that it attracts a proportionally high number of conservatives compared to other fields.

My first hypothesis for this is the money. Engineers have the potential to be very high earners. This could very well put one politically at odds with administrations that favor increasing tax revenue and spending. Many of my classmates are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I think for this reason.

My second is that students who are academically talented, especially in math and science, but who are conservative to begin with get put off by the liberal majority of academia and thus are discouraged from fields that involve a lot of contact with academia like science and medicine. This will also be the case for conservative religious students, perhaps even more so. If you spent your whole life hearing how science was a great atheist conspiracy, it may not be of great interest to you but your academic ability in science and math draws you to the next best thing.

Generally speaking though this depends a lot on field and career objective. Many engineering students aren't incredibly passionate about science and many fields don't demand a whole lot of scientific knowledge. Other fields, however, blur the line between being a scientist and an engineer and require deep knowledge of and interest in many areas of science. In a laboratory, for instance, you might need engineers to design and implement custom machinery for use in lab experiments, or you might be a scientist by education but working as a specialist with engineers.

My observation has been that my engineering classmates tend to be more liberal the more education they seek and the more science they learn: the ones who minor in computer science, math, physics, and chemistry and have graduate school plans. Liberal engineering students also, from my observation, tend to get better grades and be more involved with their classes. ^{— Unsigned, by: Maxwell885 / talk / contribs}

As a humanities major, I've noticed a lot of engineers seem to think that they know my field better than I do, simply because they study something which is very hard and that automatically makes them qualified to pontificate on anything they deem less complex (read: everything that isn't engineering). Personally I deeply resent it.174.77.36.177 (talk)

I am an engineer, and I work with a lot of other engineers who find themselves supremely qualified to pontificate on a great number of non-engineering related subjects. I can imagine it's quite annoying to be on the receiving end of such foolishness. But then again, there are a lot of people in the general public who do more than their fair share of armchair engineering, so it goes both ways. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh whenever someone's telling me I shouldn't even be here in school or making snide remarks about my major, it's always some shithead engineer who thinks that anyone who isn't also an engineer is worthless. 174.77.36.177 (talk)

The attitude isn't simply limited to engineers vs. non-engineers, but also within the broad umbrella of things titled "engineering". I'm a graduate with a B.S. Civil Engineering and I'm a practicing Environmental Engineer. There are a lot of disciplines out there with a title that contains the word "engineer" that I don't see as real engineering. It seems like the word has become broadly defined to include anyone who solves a technical problem of some sort, but many of these disciplines are further removed from math and physical science than the core of traditional engineering disciplines. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, to see software engineers or petroleum engineers (for example) to have less respect for science than a mechanical engineer. But maybe that's just my aforementioned, admitted bias. And needless to say, I died a little bit inside reading this. I feel bad for my profession now. On a side note, I never thought myself qualified to pontificate on humanities, etc. although I made my fair share of snotty remarks. Most were an expression of envy that History majors were reading cool books or sleeping while I was solving differential equations, hating life, and seriously seeing the appeal of trying methamphetamine (just to get me through the semester). Sweatsack (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Are similar tendencies found among M.D.s?

I'm raising this issue, because of examples such as Ron Paul and Ben Carson who reminded me of both the Salem Hypothesis in particular and engineers and woo in general (I seem to recall quite a number of M.D.s being creationists and evolution deniers - rather odd, considering such phenomena as viruses). My hunch is that similar forces may be at play, i.e. that neither engineers nor M.D.s need to do much (if any) actual research of their own, both engineering and medicine tend to be "problem-solving" rather than "explorative" fields, and both engineers and M.D.s are likely to infer design and/or intent ("You are sick because of X, Y and Z and need to to A, B and C to get well").

Any thought on this and do we need an article or section on M.D.s? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There are vastly more doctors than engineers, and (admittedly subjectively) engineers nonetheless seem *more* prominent, in absolute terms, than doctors, so I don't see it as very plausible. 76.66.127.252 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)