Stacks at a Power Station

Back in February, I had written a post about the differences between science and engineering, titled “Science Isn’t Engineering; Engineering Isn’t Science.”

This morning, I came across a very interesting blog by a guy named Eric Drexler, who writes about science and technology at Metamodern.com. He elaborates more on the topic that I had superficially written about in my earlier science/engineering post. In “The Antiparallel Structures of Science and Engineering” Drexler writes that, although science and engineering share the same language, the way the approach problems are different:

Science and engineering are inseparable fields, linked by a shared language of mass and energy, molecules and thermodynamics, physical systems and physical law. This shared language makes communication deceptively easy — easy, because scientists and engineers can see every detail in the same way; deceptive, because they see these details in different contexts, forming different patterns and presenting different problems. In a fundamental sense, science and engineering are antiparallel, facing in opposite directions. …

The information flows that link these levels are antiparallel: In scientific inquiry, physical systems shape their descriptions through measurement, and the results constrain and shape general, abstract models (theories) by testing them. In engineering design, by contrast, descriptions (specifications) shape physical systems through fabrication, and general, abstract models (system concepts) shape descriptions through design.

The other fundamental difference is that while science attempts to explain the natural world, engineering trys to develop designs to meet certain needs, or requirements:

While science aims (ideally) to produce exact descriptions of all parameters of all members of a general class of physical systems, engineering aims to manufacture instances of a single kind of system, making choices to ensure that its functional parameters will equal or exceed those specified by a design description.

Likewise, while science aims to formulate a single theory that exactly fits all parameters of every description, engineering aims to design at least one description of a system having functional parameters that equal or exceed those required by one of a potential multiplicity of system concepts.

Venn Diagram: Science and Engineering

Science is not engineering. Engineering is not science. They are, however, similar.

Science is assumed to be the study of general truths, the observation of objects and processes, and the discovery of laws that govern the physical world and the phenomena that exist in it. Engineering, on the other hand, is the application of science and mathematics to manipulate the properties of matter and convert the sources of energy that occur in nature as to become useful to people by accomplishing certain tasks.

Sometimes, engineering techniques and tried-and-true devices preceded any raw explanation by science. From an article titled “Don’t ask a scientist to engineer real change” on Tuesday, February 03, 2009: “Take steam engines: They were pumping water out of mines long before a science of thermodynamics was developed to explain how they worked. The engines were what prompted researchers to look into the nature of steam power in the first place.” The article goes further to argue that sometimes, science can get in the way of engineering breakthroughs.

The principles that explain how a battery works, for example, are old news. But a lightweight and cost-effective battery pack with enough juice to power a car over long distances remains an elusive goal.

On the other side of the coin, we have those those that believe that engineering does not supersede science, and science is not the end-all of new technology. From another article of the same day, “Scientists and engineers need each other“:

Sure engineers build bridges, engineer homes to be safe in hurricane winds, and build rockets to the moon. But without some scientist first figuring out the math and science used for the engineering, there would be few engineering creations, and many of them would fall down for faulty assumptions.

Both of these sides have their arguments. I believe that engineers make useful (or better) what scientists discover. Most of the time, there is a practical limit to what science can offer; it is engineering that gives us elevators, airplanes, computers, and the Internet. But while creative design and engineering is what ultimately drives this world, we need to remember that whatever we do, we still need to play by the rules—those discovered and given to us by science.