Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: The Dance of the STEMs
“Engineers think that equations approximate the real world.
Physicists think that the real world approximates equations.
Mathematicians are unable to make the connection.” –– Anonymous
Outside of the small fraternity that practices STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), everyone thinks we are harmonious purveyors of the advancement of mankind. As noted by the brave soul who made the above observation (anonymously), our worldviews have, well … differences.
Engineers are a pragmatic bunch, give us a theory and a mathematical relationship that explains how the world operates, the limitations on both that theory and the math, and we are happy to use it to a technological end. Why does it exactly work? Well after the design objectives have been achieved, let’s crack open a beer, contemplate the quirks, and why the theory has not been exactly pinned down.
As an example, there has been a bit of roundabout discussion in aerodynamics on the exact explanation of the force responsible for keeping a plane aloft. Since I implicitly promise no math when I opine on Ricochet, I refer you to the smackdown between Newton’s and Bernoulli’s take on the nature of that force (“Luke, feel the force”) that is the wind beneath your wings.
That force that has been keeping you and yours aloft since December of 1903. Confusion has its roots because we like to give as simple an explanation for a phenomenon using allegorical examples, but those models tend to break down due to the other emblematic features when we use a simplifying “model.”
Scientists strive for precision and eventually get so bogged down with some seriously esoteric math that it takes another scientist to argue if the real world is conforming to their equational beauty. Such exploration of extreme mathematical beauties goes on to suggest things like “multiple universes.” The math works, but remains totally unprovable, thus to the rest of us it is totally just a form of mental eccentricity. Whether any near-term practically can be derived from such ruminations is typically irrelevant, as long as there is a recognizable group hug in the form of a Nobel Prize before they leave this mortal coil. The true motivational goal of a real scientist….
As for the mathematicians, they are so outside either of these arguments they have their own Laments, for example, that pure math is so beautiful in its own right that it should have no need to be the instrument of helping to solve trivial facts and formulas.
Given these behavioral predilections of our subtribes, it is no wonder the rest of society keeps us at arm’s length.
Note: No Diminutive, faint looking serpents were intentionally insulted in this post.
Published in General
This is up there with my favorite: “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice . . .”
It is interesting to see who gets the ellipsis (or as Joe Biden said one day reading off the teleprompter: “dot dot dot”
I am an Engineer and son of a Physics PhD. He co-founded one of the early “Operations Research” companies and had contracts to help the Army determine maintenance schedules for Tanks and Helicopters based on statistical analysis. In the meantime, I had to remind him about inflating tires and adding oil to the family car.
Another favorite was that you could tell the difference between a technician and an Engineer by which end of the soldering iron he picks up. You can tell the difference between an Engineer and a Research Scientist by whether he drops it or not.*
*I went through all three titles at my first job, so feel that I am allowed to say this.
Ha, ha, ha. I was a history major. At least one babe went for me.
I heard a variation on this one in college. BTW, my biggest college crush (of the innocent type, of course) was on my professor of calculus-based biostatistics in my PhD program. First day of class he derived the Gaussian curve and then said if we didn’t understand what he did, we didn’t belong there. He was seriously hot! He was also clueless about it, which somehow made him all the more hot.
You thought he was more hot because he was clueless about the Gaussian curve he had just derived.
Or so I read it the first 5-10 times until I figured out what you meant. :P
Speaking of clueless? 😁
Man, if not understanding the Gaussian curve gets the ladies all worked up then I have been going about things all wrong.
Moi, aussi.
Think how hot I am for not even knowing what it is.
All four of us are certainly in a tail of the distribution. Not sure which tail.
I prefer to think of myself as being on the right-hand side (more cis-normative), but I may be deluding myself.
Was I really that unclear? I meant he was clueless about how hot he was. And maybe I’m in serious nerd territory because I found his derivation of the Gaussian (aka normal distribution or bell) curve exciting.
BTW, my husband may be an artist, which sounds all airy-fairy artsy-whatever, but he’s also a chess master and an extremely motivated life-long-learner. He’s also very good at fixing things. That’s sexier still. And, like my professor, he’s also a bit clueless about how sexy he is. It’s quite an endearing quality.
No, I’m just an engineer.
I really wish I could more than “like” this comment. It really made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that!
This video is CoC non-compliant. But it might make you laugh.
I loved this! Thanks for posting it.
Isaac Asimov said you could tell the difference between a chemist and non-chemist this way – ask him to pronounce “unionized”.
If he’s a non-chemist, he’ll say “union-ized”.
If he’s a chemist, he’ll say “un-ionized”.
Funny, I don’t remember you in my class. Did you sit in the back? Hehe . . .
Front row, center. Where I sat for every one of my classes. Yeah, I was one of those.
If you must know… Number 1.
So, if he’s a colleague of yours, don’t mention my name. Though I suspect he may not have been so clueless not to have noticed that all of the front row seats were taken by women.