1. Comment #26985 by davyB on March 22, 2007 at 5:52 pm

I'm pretty sure whoever wrote that sentence didn't major in mathematics or English. Bachelor of Gibberish, maybe.

Other Comments by davyB

2. Comment #26992 by Ricky Ramirez on March 22, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Yes, I've also noticed this correlation. I remember sitting down to dinner one night (surrounded by fundies) and being delighted to find that a professional scientist was also at the table: an engineer! Surely, a fellow nonbeliever! Someone I can relate to! Right?

Wrong. Very very wrong. This engineer shattered my hopes of having a rational conversation when he insisted that he lead us all in a serious prayer to Jesus before eating.

Other Comments by Ricky Ramirez

3. Comment #27000 by Shuggy on March 22, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Well since it's Wikipedia, anyone can correct their English. Just a minute...

Other Comments by Shuggy

4. Comment #27002 by neander on March 22, 2007 at 8:01 pm

Yes, I have noticed this occasionally. As an interesting aside, I recently had one of my students (Biology) who also takes Physics state that biology had surprised her as it was actually much harder that physics. Her point was that once you grasped the mathematics physics was easy to follow and governed by set laws, whereas biology was complex and dynamic and required more effort to understand at a deep level.
I also wonder if there is a correlation with Aperger's syndrome; which often gives very great mathematics and physics abilities to people, but which tends to limit their abilities to interact with people at a social level.

Other Comments by neander

5. Comment #27003 by fonex_86 on March 22, 2007 at 8:02 pm

My experience with both academic and professional engineers seem to suggest that the education of the scientific method (or even the scientific way of thinking) was not a priority in their education.

Unfortunately, many are unaware of this fact, and in their ignorance continue to spread scientific misconceptions and bigoted worldviews, all the while flashing their engineering diplomas to lend their arguments some weight.

I utterly HATE these scum (ignorant engineers -- not ALL engineers, obviously); they are arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, and completely useless, both in the academic and social context.

Other Comments by fonex_86

6. Comment #27004 by amazeen on March 22, 2007 at 8:04 pm

There seems to be some confusion here, engineering is not science.

Other Comments by amazeen

7. Comment #27005 by Shuggy on March 22, 2007 at 8:05 pm

OK, now it says

"The "Salem Hypothesis" (named after Bruce Salem) is a name for a correlation that has been observed in scientists, between subscribing to creationism and working in an engineering discipline. There are two versions of the hypothesis, with different implications."

Other Comments by Shuggy

8. Comment #27007 by Shuggy on March 22, 2007 at 8:10 pm

amazeen wrote:

"engineering is not science."

I agree, and that gave me trouble with the wording.

(I didn't know Wikipedia didn't like people posting their content. Since it's open-source in, I thought it'd be open-source out also. I see they don't like stuff cut and pasted TO Wikipedia but that's different.)

To the substantive hypothesis. Is it a correlation between Creationism and Engineering, or just a negative correlation between Creationism and Biology/Geology? I'd have thought physicists would be just as bad.

Other Comments by Shuggy

9. Comment #27016 by Lodestone on March 22, 2007 at 9:22 pm

I take offence. I am a professional engineer and how I arrived at my atheistic position had absolutely nothing to do with my profession or education. I was heavily programmed christan/baptist in my formative years and once I was out from under the influence from my parents and family, logic slowly took over. I suspect that there are many aspects of life and personality that keep people from looking for the truth but I do not think being an engineering type could provide a correlation that could truly be proved (but as in the scientific method, I could be wrong) It has been my experience that most people are just afraid to really consider something different once they have gotten comfortable with their current beliefs regardless of profession.

Other Comments by Lodestone

10. Comment #27025 by Yorker on March 22, 2007 at 10:23 pm

The degree of crap being spouted here is astounding, puerile and most of all, disappointing.

amazeen said:

"engineering is not science"

fonex_86 said:

"I utterly HATE these scum (ignorant engineers -- not ALL engineers, obviously); they are arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, and completely useless, both in the academic and social context."

I find it difficult to believe that persons could display such a transparent lack of knowledge and ignorance on a website like this! I hope you are very young people; I would hate to think you were both stupid!

Engineering of any kind is applied science of the highest order; indeed, it could fairly be described as the very expression of the body of knowledge we call science. The fact that a few of you are able to talk such nonsense on a computer makes my point perfectly. I can only assume that you are either inexperienced or have failed to notice that everything you have and use in your life was engineered for you by a wiser person trained in the practical application of scientific principles.

In my own life as a professional electronics engineer and software engineer, I have met and got to know many other engineers, only two were religious and these were in the USA. In the UK, I never met a single religious engineer.

Unlike Lodestone, I do not take offence, anyone who can label engineers as SCUM, has a mental condition that is more to be pitied rather than angered by. There are other engineers who frequent this site, I suggest you babies run and hide before they come along and verbally spank your ungrateful little arses for you!

I hereby challenge any of you ignorant engineering naysayers to explain how you can justify the nonsensical claim that engineering is not science. I would just LOVE to hear what you think engineering is! All engineering relies heavily on mathematics, the queen of sciences, or am I and all the world's physicists wrong here also? I don't think so. The best thing for each of you who made such foolish remarks to do would be to immediately post apologetic comments before people laugh at you. How can you expect to be taken seriously in future otherwise?

Other Comments by Yorker

11. Comment #27027 by Fishpeddler on March 22, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Lodestone, there is no reason to be offended. I would not myself claim any correlation, since I haven't seen any data, but if it exists, that wouldn't necessarily reflect on you personally. It would, however, certainly point to some interesting research to be done. For example, one might study whether creationists pursue careers in engineering as a way of experiencing logic, reason, and rationality, since those pleasures are completely absent from their religious lives.

And Yorker, I am NOT AT ALL one of the engineer bashers, but I have to point out: saying you 'rely' on science isn't the same thing as saying you 'do' science. But I agree with your basic argument. How lucky we would all be if everyone had as much knowledge and understanding of the sciences as engineers typically do.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

12. Comment #27028 by EndlessForms on March 22, 2007 at 11:27 pm

You know, I would have waved off that correlation until something very odd came up in my memory. I have an uncle who is an engineer for one of the big car companies, and I never considered him or that family to be particularly religious, but two thanksgivings ago we were all talking about books we've recently read, and I decided to strike a conversation with him. I said "I just finished this great book _________, it was so interesting becuase of __________. Have you read anything interesting recently?" He answered "yes, THE BIBLE".

True story.

(after further discussion, he was not joking as I first surmised, but very serious, going into increadably boring detail...)

Other Comments by EndlessForms

13. Comment #27029 by EndlessForms on March 22, 2007 at 11:42 pm

There's an old study(s) that seems to get into this a bit, but unfortunatley all I can read is the abstract and the fist page.

Religiosity and Secularization in the Academic Professions
Fred Thalheimer
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7732(196812)47%3A2%3C171%3AADAPOF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

Academic Discipline As Predictive of Faculty Religiosity
Edward C. Lehman, Jr., Donald W. Shriver, Jr.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7732(196812)47%3A2%3C171%3AADAPOF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

Also, I think I recall hearing something about this in a video I saw, maybe Beyond Belief '06?

Anyway, more anecdotal than anything...right?

Other Comments by EndlessForms

14. Comment #27033 by Shuggy on March 23, 2007 at 12:12 am

Sorry that you took offence, Yorker, but I'll stick by it. Engineering is technology. It is applied science (but so is Home Science), not fundamental scientific research. Nothing the matter with that, engineering is valuable (we all trust our lives to it) but let's not confuse categories.

And anecdotes about individual engineers who are not creationists do not disprove a correlation. Nobody said "all engineers are creationists".

But I dissociate myself from the poster who HATES engineers. That's uncalled for.

Other Comments by Shuggy

15. Comment #27034 by Steve19 on March 23, 2007 at 12:51 am

If engineers ARE more religious than scientists, which I don't think there is any conclusive evidence to suggest, I think it's most likely just because scientists tend to be EVEN MORE familiar with and respectful of the scientific method and science in general.

I'm studying an engineering course, and I think that learning about good design has made me even more doubtful of a designer than I was before (as well as fueling a greater passion for science in general).

In engineering, a lot of emphasis is put on achieving the most effective or efficient solution to a problem, and it has only taken us a few thousand years of engineering to achieve multitudes of things nature hasn't and will never be able to. One by one, many of the wonders of nature have been surpassed by human ingenuity - we can now see further, move faster and fly higher than anything that has been produced by nature. Either God was a terrible engineer or those 'designs' arose through a non-intelligent mechanism.

Moving on to the low opinion some of you have of engineers, bare in mind that in different parts of the world being an engineer can mean different things. Some tradespeople consider themselves engineers, and they may not have had any scientific education. In Australia it is generally understood that to be an engineer requires completing a four year university course containing science, maths and statistics, as well as more engineering specific subjects.

In fact, I found this petition near (above) the faith school one complaining about the ambiguity of the term 'engineer' in the UK:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Engineer-Status/

Also, in my opinion anecdotes (and I have many) should not be required to disprove a correlation that hasn't been proved yet. The null hypothesis should be that there is no correlation!

Other Comments by Steve19

16. Comment #27042 by MartinSGill on March 23, 2007 at 2:35 am

Shuggy, you are wrong.

I'm sure there are religious engineers, just as I know there are religious scientists.

Engineering though is most definitely science. It is the application of science to the real world. Science tends to be abstract dealing in concepts that have no direct application to the real world, no matter how fascinating they might be in and of themselves.

The fact that certain distillates of oil ignite under pressure is a very interesting scientific discovery. Yet it's the the engineers that can turn this discovery into something useful like the diesel engine.

The problem with the UK is that the word engineer is used to describe jobs that have nothing to do with true engineering. As steve19 pointed out.

The gas "Engineer" that reads your meter is not an engineer, he's a technician at best and at worst he's just someone that knows how to read.

The "engineer" that fixes your car is a mechanic (a technician), not an engineer.

The key difference is that engineers design things. It's like the difference between an architect and a builder. An engineer designs the car, a mechanic keeps it running. An engineer designs the aircraft, technicians build it. An engineer designs a stereo system and technicians assemble it.

The knowledge required for each vocation is very different. Think of it as a continuous scale:

Scientists are the most abstract. They are mostly interested in why things are the way they are.

Engineers combine the abstract and make it practical. They take the "why" and find a way to use it, to make it work. They need to understand the implications of the science.

Technicians/mechanics are very practical, they don't usually need to know why something works to do their job, they need to know how it works.

A mechanic knows that if he uses a bolt that's too thin, it will hold for a while then break. An engineer can calculate the size of bolt required to safely hold the item, so that size can be put in the manual the mechanic uses. A scientist studies the interactions of atoms and properties of metals to determine laws for their behaviour, which are turned into the equations the engineer uses to determine the size of bolt required.

These are not rigid divisions either. A good engineer will also be part scientist, allowing him to investigate problems. He'll also knows the basics of being a mechanic, so that he learns that some things that look great on paper will never work in practice. And a mechanic will through experience and practical knowledge gain an appreciation of the greater implications of what he does; something an engineer is trained in from the start.

It's for this reason people on engineering courses are required to do welding/metal work, or create a website and setup a computer network (depending on their specialisation) so that they gain an appreciation of the implications of their decisions/designs. In the UK, these courses are called EA1, EA2 etc (Engineering Appreciation) and without those courses you only get a BSc (note, a science degree) instead of a BEng (an engineering degree). The professional engineering societies in the UK will never give you chartered status until you have either done those courses, or done enough practical work to make up for them.

Ok.. essay on engineering over.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

17. Comment #27045 by Logicel on March 23, 2007 at 3:03 am

MartinSGill, thanks for that concise summary of how science and technology can and need to be welded together.

Anecdotally, one of the most vocal atheists I have ever known--my own sister--was a Civil Engineer.

As for the comment by Fonex,

"I utterly HATE these scum (ignorant engineers -- not ALL engineers, obviously); they are arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, and completely useless, both in the academic and social context."

Fonex specified ignorant engineers. It would be helpful if Fonex elaborated and defined who/what is meant by ignorant engineers.

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #27057 by MartinSGill on March 23, 2007 at 3:55 am

On reflection I can see why Engineers might be more religious (statistically) than scientists; if that statement is even true.

Because engineers design things, they appreciate just how difficult it is to create a complex system. This might well predispose us to believing in a celestial designer; not to mention the warm glow you might get for equating yourself more closely with God than others can; if God existed, he'd most definitely have to be an engineer, after all

As it happens, of every single engineer I've ever worked with the closest any of them ever came to religion is indifference; even the one who's married to a very religious wife.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

19. Comment #27063 by Carl S. Richardson on March 23, 2007 at 4:11 am

I've never understood creationist engineers. I heard someone claim they should know best whether something was designed or not however shouldn't it technically be computer programmers who know best – you know since DNA codes for things, it doesn't take a head off the table and attach it to a neck like an engineer would take parts and assemble them.

As to the hypothesis, the discovery institute seems to be filled with engineers. I remember debating someone about intelligent design and he kept pleading to authorities from the Discovery Institute and when I looked into them, not a single one of his authorities was a biologist, most though were engineers.

As to engineering been a science, I would say it is an applied science.

Other Comments by Carl S. Richardson

20. Comment #27096 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 6:10 am

MartinSGill has given a fair definition of what an engineer is, but it seems that some of you still haven't grasped it.

Engineers design things, technicians build them. That is not to say that engineers cannot build things, it's just not their main function. Some engineers start their careers as technicians, I well remember the day I became an engineer; I sat down and designed an electronic circuit to perform a specific task. I took the requirement, decided on the best way to go about it (the key point), did the calculations, drew the circuit and gave it to a technician to build. I did not HOPE it would work, my knowledge of the underlying scientific principles behind every component caused me to KNOW it would; my interest in the outcome was to see how close my design would adhere to the parameters I had DESIGNED into it.

Another example: quantum mechanics is just about as "scientific" as you can get, modern electronics would be impossible without reliance upon quantum effects. I wonder if "tunnel diode" means anything to you engineering naysayers? I guess not so I'll tell you, without blinding you with science, it is a component that relies upon quantum tunneling to perform its function.

Shuggy,

I didn't take offence, I simply pointed out your error. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you come back with the statement that engineering is technology, you're trying to wriggle out of a hole by making another error. Technology is that which draws upon engineering and science as a means to making things of a technical nature. You're committing a classic error made usually by non-scientifically trained persons; you're trying to have an opinion about a fact, all scientists and engineers know that such is not allowed in the real world!

Engineering IS applied science; that is a fact – no opinions allowed!

So, don't compound your error by making more, just have the courage to admit you were wrong.

Fishpeddler,

Read with more care. I said engineers relied on mathematics, as do scientists.

Fonex,

I've read one or two of your previous posts; I didn't take you for a fool. I won't repeat your ridiculous statement about engineers; I'll be kind and assume you were ignorant about what an engineer is. Still, unless you retract that nonsense I shall have to revise my opinion of you.

Perhaps some of you have been deluded into thinking that engineers are more religious than those of other scientific disciplines by the insularity of the country you live in. I notice Americans suffer most from this delusion, many seem to think their country's religiosity is reflected throughout the rest of the Western world; this is not the case. I know from personal experience that some Americans can be amazingly insular, as I said in my first post, the only religious engineers I ever met, were American.

I'll conclude by pointing out that many of the most intelligent persons who ever lived were physicists and engineers, so those of you who decry these disciplines should think twice before posting drivel.

Other Comments by Yorker

21. Comment #27100 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 6:21 am

^Three cheers for Engineers!^

Other Comments by BaronOchs

22. Comment #27126 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 8:26 am

One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is this:

The difference between a scientist and an engineer is often nothing; is an engineer who wins a doctorate in his field any less of a scientist than a person with a doctorate in chemistry or biology? Clearly not, I was amused by the poster who had a friend who said that once the mathematics were understood, physics was not as "hard" as biology! Although not quite ROFL I was close to it, this person must have been a first year student fresh out of redneck school! The greatest physicist alive would never say they "knew" the "maths" of physics; maths is a tool used and developed continuously. A chemist or biologist need only have some knowledge of one of the nuclear forces, namely, the electromagnetic force; it entirely governs their discipline, I suspect there may be a few "biologists" here unaware of that fact. A physicist must have much deeper knowledge; they must peer through the electron cloud to probe the workings of the atom.

In conclusion, it can be fairly stated that although those working in pure science would likely have the deepest knowledge of nature, it is left to the engineer to produce the goods. Slavery to the environment is suffered by all creatures apart from humanity; engineers are the ones who freed us. I don't wish to denigrate the great biological advances made in recent history, but without the tools needed to do the work, without environmentally controlled places in which to carry out the work, without homes to live in or food to eat, biological work wouldn't happen.

No question about it, engineers are arguably the world's most important people!

Other Comments by Yorker

23. Comment #27135 by jonecc on March 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

I would imagine that as many creationists have an aptitude for technical problems as anyone else, and those creationists that do would probably be uncomfortable with theoretical science, so would tend to go into applied science, therefore engineering. Therefore you'd expect to meet a lot of creationist engineers, especially in a country like US where a lot of people are creationists in the first place.

I would also imagine that most engineers would tend towards science or Maths at school, whatever their religious beliefs. If it turned out that science-minded creationists took the same subjects at school as science-minded non-creationists, but then the split occurred as soon as the option to specialise became available, this would back this up.

I assume that in the US students are able to specialise in Maths, Physics, Chemistry and/or Biology at school, then choose more precise subjects such as Physiology or Electrical Engineering at college or university, as in the UK.

Other Comments by jonecc

24. Comment #27137 by icouldbewrongbut on March 23, 2007 at 9:06 am

I'd expect a survey to find engineers to be statistically more religious than, say, biologists and statistically less religious than the general population.

My critical thinking came before my engineering, but I was interested in science and its ability to find actual truth instead of the horrid uninformed authoritative claims to knowledge abounding around me.. There were numerous factors that influenced my path to atheism. Primary factors were: My own critical thought / observance of reality as a child in contrast to what I was told by my parents and by my catholic grade-school; As a child being fascinated by what science said (Cosmos, etc) about fossils / the age of the universe / evolution; My philosophy courses in college in which we studied various divergent metaphysical paradigms - I learned the mature way to think about metaphysics. I (unfortunately) never took any biology / geology / etc courses, even in high-school. My science courses in college were 1 chemistry and 3 phyics classes.

My critical thinking and desire at the time to really understand the universe attracted me to science --and computer engineering seemed like a guaranteed path to making good money and allowed at least critical thought if not direct study of the universe itself as I would have liked. As a systems engineer, I used the scientific method every day debugging issues - hypothesis of the problem / devise tests / test hypothesis / come up with new hypothesis. Development engineers often must test and debug their designs, and this process seems to me to resemble the scientific method.

So , I think that engineers use much critical thought and some scientific method, and are usually well informed on certain categories of science. However, there seems to be a great diversity among engineers wrt interest in all of science, esp. the topics in science that reflect on religion. Programmers and hardware designers in computer engineering can get by their entire careers, if they are so predeposed, without having to face what Science say about religion.

I'm an electrical/computer engineer and worked in Colorado Springs for 6 years. I worked with over 100 engineers, and religion abounded among them. I'd estimate that about 5% of the engineers I knew would be open to arguing about the foolishness of god-belief. About another 20% were secular / non-church going agnostic types. I'd estimate about a 30% of the engineers were true-believers who would value Ted Haggard/New Life Church and Focus on the Family (including one of my bosses). The rest seemed to be in the middle - fence sitters - not wanting to cause offense - going to church if their family goes - conditioned to react negatively to attacks on religion but seeing foolishness in fundamentalism..

Getting out of college, I had expected engineers to be overwhelmingly non-religious. I think I was looking-forward to being in an environment of people I respected intellectually. So it was a huge disappointment to discover otherwise. Religious engineers always struck me as intellectually lazy or dishonest or naive or fearful in not applying their good critical thinking skills to all of their beliefs, even their cherished beliefs.

(Oh yea, and the majority are politically conservative)

Other Comments by icouldbewrongbut

25. Comment #27138 by jonecc on March 23, 2007 at 9:06 am

As so many of you are engineers, can you teach us any of your songs?

Other Comments by jonecc

26. Comment #27140 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 9:12 am

Yorker,

Firstly, allow me to apologize to you (and to everyone) if my statement was offensive to you. I suppose I could have worded it more carefully to avoid this, as Logicel pointed out.

My harsh view of engineers ultimately comes from the experiences I had with them. I don't know what passes for an engineer in other countries these days, but in mine, they're mostly rubbish when it comes to the understanding of science.

For example, a graduate (!!) in Electrical Engineering, whose everyday work involves IC's, microchips, and assembly coding, when questioned, couldn't even explain the workings of a simple transistor.

Indeed, I once confronted an EE lecturer (!!) who was trying to convince his superiors to fund a certain project of his, which was basically a free energy machine (!!). Needless to say, our relation remains strained to this day.

To make a long story short, most "engineers" I have met (and that's quite a LOT) turn out, upon closer inspection, to be little more than number-crunching, knob-tweaking, button-pushing robots. They have little, if any, understanding of the basic physical principles behind their field. Even in the case where understanding is present, few manage to apply the very same principles to solve a (much simpler) problem in basic physics!

As these kinds are the only "engineers" I've ever met, I feel my harsh view of them is certainly justified. These people are what I call "ignorant engineers". Although I know that not all engineers are like this, the sheer number of negative encounters I've had with them has (perhaps mistakenly) led me to believe that there must be some correlation between the occupation and belief in the woo-woo world.

Hmm, I've overshot my bedtime, so I'll end my post here.

Looking forward to reading your responses,

fonex_86

Other Comments by fonex_86

27. Comment #27145 by jonecc on March 23, 2007 at 9:33 am

Do all theoretical scientists have a bedtime? Is it centrally controlled?

Other Comments by jonecc

28. Comment #27146 by icouldbewrongbut on March 23, 2007 at 9:37 am

I agree fonex_86. I think your IC example is a good one. A lot of Electrical and Computer Engineers, if not the majority, can get-by in their Science and Electromagnetics classes and never think about physics once in their careers. A lot of EE jobs operate at a layer abstracted beyond the underlaying physics. True for the vast majority of engineers at my last job.

Other Comments by icouldbewrongbut

29. Comment #27147 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 9:37 am

jonecc,

I think most of us have bedtimes "centrally controlled" by that large slimy organ sitting inside our skulls... =D

Other Comments by fonex_86

30. Comment #27163 by cbelt on March 23, 2007 at 10:23 am

I am a degreed engineer with about 25 years experience. I also have a Biology degree. Here's a few random thoughts.

Engineering is typically the application of technical knowledge to solve practical problems. They ask "How can we do X?" Things don't get very philosophical, so you're not forced to examine your pre-existing religious beliefs. Engineers may choose to do this on their own, but it doesn't go with the job. Engineering doesn't make you a creationist, but it doesn't stop you either.

Science puts you face to face with basic realities which are hard to reconcile with religion, like the age of the earth, the size of the cosmos, evolution, the physical nature of the mind, etc. Scientists also focus more on "why" questions, which ultimately can lead to philosophical and religious thought.

Other Comments by cbelt

31. Comment #27170 by karlJ on March 23, 2007 at 10:43 am

Well, the "why" question is typical of religious nature. That is, a question that is quite easy to ask, but when you examine it closer it doesn't really mean anything. "why am I here", "whats the purpose of life",etc. They all include a prerequisite that the question is valid. And if so there must be something outside myself that has a plan for me. Voila! religion. Then if you accept the question without analysis you can spend the remainder of your life trying to answering it, digging deeper and deeper into fiction as you go along until you finally convince yourself that the fiction you have dreamed up is the thruth.

Other Comments by karlJ

32. Comment #27171 by grolaw on March 23, 2007 at 10:46 am

A previous post states: "Engineering is technology." I agree to the extent that engineering is applied technology. Most engineers that I interact with are U.S. Patent Lawyers and their fields of expertise are EE (both power and circuit), Chem. and Civil.

The wars - and I do mean wars - between the Biotech Patent Lawyers (usually Ph.D. - albeit that a few of us opted for master's only programs - mine is in Endocrine Physiology and woefully dated) and the Engineer Patent Lawyers - are fierce.

An odd aspect of the law in the US is that Patent Lawyers had to have "science" degrees, and their Juris Doctorate to sit for the Patent Bar. At the time I sat for the Patent Bar (1990) a science degree was defined as any engineering field except computing, chemistry and biology.

The Patent Law field was dominated by engineers who would not accept a non-engineer patent lawyer into their firms unless the non-engineer held an advanced degree. My triple major baccalaureate (Biology, Chemistry and Art History) was sufficient to qualify me to sit for the patent bar - and pass, but not to obtain a job with a patent law-firm! The engineers all held baccalaureate degrees, but required more from non-engineers.

The upshot: the patent lawyers who are engineers tend to be very religious and I have been to any number of "law-firm retreats" where a full day was devoted to nothing but attending "revival" meetings of the Baptist flavor.

I'm located in Missouri, US and this is the heart of the Bible Belt. The overt religiosity of senior-partner engineer patent lawyers and their mandatory attendance at overtly religious firm functions soured me on the field - at least here in the central US.

As far as I can remember from the three patent firms I worked for, every engineer was religious to some degree or another and every firm was controlled by engineers because they held the most seniority/partnership share.

None of this religiosity violates U.S. employment discrimination law - because the firms were "partnerships" and not "employers" as defined by Title VII 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. This kind of overt religious discrimination (mandating participation in religious activities as a part of the job) would be actionable in another type of employment setting - and, yes, that is one of the bad aspects of being an attorney - we all can look up the law and find ways to get around it.

The fairly good news I hear from my colleagues in California is that there are now some solid Biotech Patent firms populated by Ph.D./J.D. counsel with a much less overt religion. The bad news is that the only hire newly-minted Ph.D.'s....

Other Comments by grolaw

33. Comment #27180 by amazeen on March 23, 2007 at 11:51 am

Some here seem to have been offended by my remark here above.
I have the utmost respect for engineering and engineers, and alot of my friends have degrees in engineering.
But I do think there is a difference between science and engineering. Engineering is the application of science.
A physicist aplies mathematics, but is not necessarily a mathematician. Similarly an engineer is someone who applies science, but is not necessarily a scientist.
That was all I meant.

Other Comments by amazeen

34. Comment #27184 by Steven Mading on March 23, 2007 at 12:39 pm

An engineer learns science and builds things with it.
A scientist learns science and build more science with it.

Both start out by learning what science has already discovered. It's what they do with it that makes them different. Both are important. Both are useful. But don't trick yourself into thinking they are identical.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

35. Comment #27189 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Well, firstly, nothing more needs saying about religious American engineers, suffice it to say the hugely excessive religiosity of that country explains most, if not all of it. People researching such things should look at the big picture, not just the 9 percent of world population that is the USA.

There seems to be some truth in the contention that engineering standards are slipping. This is partly the fault of the educational system, and partly the fault of industry generally. Nowadays, electrical/electronic engineers deal with LSI (Large Scale Integration) they design circuits by knowing how to connect together chips that were designed by someone else. That someone however, in order to design chips, must be an expert in the underlying physics of how the various types of transistors work.

I grew up and was trained in the "golden" age of electronic engineering, when we had just started making the transition from thermionic, to solid-state devices. I had been making radios and amplifiers from the age of 9 and had a sound understanding of valves (tubes, USA) and all discrete electronic components. When real-world transistors became feasible I gobbled up as much knowledge on them as I could and had good expertise even before I went to college. My point is that modern engineers have had much of the nitty-gritty abstracted away from them by LSI; they are perhaps not as knowledgeable as us oldies because they don't need to be. Indeed, the swing towards LSI was what made me change careers and go into software.

It must also be borne in mind that there are good and bad in all scientific fields, having a degree does not automatically make one a good practitioner, the most important attribute is love of the subject and the desire to invent and innovate. It is also true that in some fields a bad practitioner can go "undiscovered" for quite a while, a doctor for example. A bad practitioner in physics would be uncovered immediately.

In the field of software one encounters a wide range of skills. A person who writes application programs using a computer language is called unsurprisingly, a programmer. A person who builds a website using a software tool designed for that task cannot be described as a programmer, he/she may well be a programmer, but the task of basic website building does not require good programming skills. That's why the glut of outfits set up to do websites have been severely thinned out, software packages that make that job easy, have made them extinct. A software engineer is a person of high knowledge and skill often with a computer science degree. For example, people who write compilers; operating systems; the languages that others use; embedded software directly controlling hardware at the lowest level. In many cases the best of these are those with electronic hardware and software skills. I once worked for a large disk drive company, we paid big bucks to get people from anywhere in the world who could write microcode, sponsored them for green cards, work permits etc. Companies do not spend money like this on ignorant robot-like people; I have never met an ignorant microcoder. Software at its best is a blend of science and art. You might commission two artists to paint your portrait, both pictures will look like you but they will not be identical. So it is with software, two people may produce code that accomplishes a specified task but the actual code is unlikely to be identical in a non-trivial application. The best code will be elegant, fast, use minimum memory and contain the least lines of code, the art of applied computer science. The success of Microsoft is a testament to this; Bill Gates is a very smart guy whose courage and self assuredness led him to hire people as smart or smarter, than himself; I think you will find very few ignorant engineers working at Microsoft. Many American and British companies fail because they fear brains. I'd also be willing to bet that the vast majority of MS engineers would not be religites; starting of course, from the boss down, but then, many are not native-born Americans and so are God-virus free.

I could write a book on the history of software and in fact, almost did, but Gates beat me to it. To those of you with a low opinion of engineers, I can only assume you have come across the dregs at the bottom of the barrel. You need to have some experience with Japanese, Indian and European engineers before airing your narrowly formed opinions. Look also to China, another country not in the grip of religious fervour, they have already demonstrated their ability to down American satellites if required, they are rapidly overtaking the USA economically as well. I fear that if the current idiotic upsurge in American religiosity continues, it will hasten the downfall of the USA; it will become a nation of ill-educated god fanatics whose trigger-happy attitude towards the rest of the world might need to be curbed by rational force. Of course I hope not, because my son still lives there and I have some fine American friends.

Other Comments by Yorker

36. Comment #27192 by karlJ on March 23, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I feel I have to rebuke some of you,

Since 20 years or more I've been working as a software engineer. I think that I have some saying: Firstly, you don't learn it by studying(at least not the finer details of it) and getting degrees, you have to like it, then you have to have a faculty of logic and organization that most folks don't have, geeks comes to mind.

Other Comments by karlJ

37. Comment #27201 by Enthalpy on March 23, 2007 at 2:01 pm

I am a licensed, Professional Mechanical Engineer. While I am an athiest, I will attest that I am surrounded by VERY religious engineers in the workplace. I just assumed it was a weird turn of luck that it turned out that way,.. until I read this. I'll have to think more about why an engineering mind would be more susceptible to the delusion than scientists.

As far as ineptitude. There are very great engineers and very bad engineers. However, most people can't tell the difference. What hurts even more is the magnitude of people that hurt the engineering reputation by slapping themselves with an important sounding engineering title, like 'Sales Engineer' or basically anyone who claims to be an engineer that isn't licensed. It is rampant.

Other Comments by Enthalpy

38. Comment #27202 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Yorker:

I can only assume you have come across the dregs at the bottom of the barrel. You need to have some experience with Japanese, Indian and European engineers before airing your narrowly formed opinions. Look also to China, another country not in the grip of religious fervour

Well, unfortunately it is also my experience with Indian, Singaporean, and Chinese engineers that made me think twice before considering them fellow critical thinkers: almost all I've met at least considered that a belief in a deity is warranted and respectable. Most would not hesitate to say "hey, I'm a scientist, but I believe in god/am not an atheist/think god is possible" and their engineering degrees serve only to give them credibility.

My opinion was formed during a period of 5-6 years, during which almost all encounters with engineers have been negative. I have considered engineers from quite a few other countries (and subjects), I have searched in vain for sufficiently critical minds among those I knew. So please, I've refrained from further hate language; could you at least refrain from calling my honest and statistically justified opinion as "narrow"?

karlJ:

Since 20 years or more I've been working as a software engineer. I think that I have some saying: Firstly, you don't learn it by studying(at least not the finer details of it) and getting degrees, you have to like it, then you have to have a faculty of logic and organization that most folks don't have, geeks comes to mind.

Unfortunately, it appears that most engineers I know fail to bring that heavy-duty logic to bear on their beliefs. My opinion is that there is a correlation between the engineering studies and religiosity -- a rough back-of-the-envelope count gave me the following figures: about 90% of all "engineers" I've met professed belief in god, with 25% of them of the fundamentalist type. It is in stark contrast with the people I know who studied the basic sciences: only 50% professed a belief in god (the rest were mostly agnostic), and among these, only 10% were fundamentalist.

Other Comments by fonex_86

39. Comment #27207 by Graham on March 23, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I want to say that this hypothesis is definately onto something, as I'm constantly amazed that the high quality engineering and geoscientist consultancy I work for includes some creationists. However, maybe that is just my engineering vs science prejudice? Like good scientists, we need some data to test this hypothesis.

Other Comments by Graham

40. Comment #27209 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I recall reading an article a few years back about the growing intelligent design movement in US colleges. Which basically argued students who had been brought up on creationism were going off to do Biology degrees, which made it very difficult to believe in creationism, so intelligent design offered an acceptable escape from the cognitive dissonance.

I don't know whether the Salem hypothesis boils down to anything, to do so I'd need to see some accurate statistics. But given the above, if all it's saying is that on the whole someone who has been indoctrinated all their life will probably be able to survive an engineering degree with those beliefs intact it doesn't surprise me, and it isn't a slight to engineers.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

41. Comment #27221 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Fonex,

You say you formed your opinion after 5 or 6 years, I have formed mine after 40 years. You did not say where you formed your opinion, I assumed the USA which is why I characterized it as narrow. My experience of engineers has been virtually the reverse of yours, almost all of them non-religious and most of them very good at their job; great lovers of science and its method. Here in Scotland we have a few religious people but most are not, in the area where I was raised we looked upon Godites as freakish people who "were not all there" to use a Scottish expression. We also have a great history as people of science, engineering, medicine and literature who have produced famous people vastly more than would be expected from such a small nation. But of course, if you have any knowledge of science history you will already know this.

Other Comments by Yorker

42. Comment #27224 by Corylus on March 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Wow – bit heated on all sides here. I hesitate to stick my head over the parapet here, but there is something that I would like some opinion on…

First, let me say that:

A) I do think that engineering is a science: building something and seeing whether or not it works sounds like a method of experimentation to me. (N.B. Dennett even goes further than this in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by suggesting that just as there is a field of 'Philosophy of Science' there should be a field of 'Philosophy of Engineering': I think this is a lovely notion).
B) I do not have a downer on engineers, in fact I would never have got to university but for the hard work of my 100% sane, agnostic, engineer father. I do not have enough personal experience of engineers to love or hate them as a bunch: but there is one that I love very much indeed and I won't have a word said against him.

Right, now I have put on my flak jacket, let me suggest a possible explanation for the Salem Hypothesis…

No one here has mentioned Asberger's Syndrome. This, as I am sure most of you know, this is a high functioning autistic spectrum disorder. It is characterized by an obsession with rules, pedantry, poor social communication and a desire for an ordered environment about oneself. (Made for creationists then!)

However, it is also often accompanied by a higher than average IQ and technical talent in such fields as mathematics, software design and ENGINEERING. Those interested can read more about it here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbergers

I am wondering this might account for the creationist/engineering link??

No, I am NOT saying that all engineers are mentally ill. Yorker, please don't tell me off :-) I would however be very interested if those on this board with experience or working with lots of engineers would scan the wiki link above and see whether there is anyone they recognize?

P.S. Baron Ochs: I am really tempted to ask 'what's with the big (is it an aubergine?) thing on your avatar, but maybe I don't wanna know ;-)

Other Comments by Corylus

43. Comment #27228 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Corylus Yes it's an aubergine . . .someone mentioned eggplants in a debate on one thread and it went there as a joke, uhh yeah well like you say I think it's replacement is required!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

44. Comment #27236 by Corylus on March 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Baron,

Quick turnaround on the avatar change! But an equation? I was kind of hoping for a carrot.. or maybe.. a parsnip?

Other Comments by Corylus

45. Comment #27253 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Yorker:

You say you formed your opinion after 5 or 6 years, I have formed mine after 40 years. You did not say where you formed your opinion, I assumed the USA which is why I characterized it as narrow. My experience of engineers has been virtually the reverse of yours, almost all of them non-religious and most of them very good at their job; great lovers of science and its method. Here in Scotland we have a few religious people but most are not, in the area where I was raised we looked upon Godites as freakish people who "were not all there" to use a Scottish expression. We also have a great history as people of science, engineering, medicine and literature who have produced famous people vastly more than would be expected from such a small nation. But of course, if you have any knowledge of science history you will already know this.

Thank you for sharing your experience with me. It is heartening to know that not all engineers are like those I've encountered.

It seems we are both guilty of presuming each other to be from the United States. Upon reading that you actually hail from Scotland, your positive outlook of engineers suddenly makes much more sense. I do have some knowledge of science history: enough to know of Scotland's great tradition of science and engineering!

My initial post, which upon retrospect was rather uncalled for, was caused by the swirl of emotions I was experiencing after another unpleasant encounter with an engineer (my, what is it with me and them?). It is a rather odd fact that the physics lab at my institution is owned and run by the EE department (not the physics dept). The way they do this, however, would make any scientist's blood boil. When I tried to intervene and correct the (many) misconceptions they were teaching to the students, I was swiftly kicked out of the lab and barred access to it indefinitely. The precise nature of the misconceptions are so shameful, I will not elaborate on them here -- let's just say, for example, that their understanding of Hooke's law wasn't exactly up to par with that of a typical physics freshman.

Finally, allow me to apologize again for my rash language.

Cheers,

fonex_86

Other Comments by fonex_86

46. Comment #27259 by eddie.river on March 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm

I have been involved in engineering at various levels for 35 years, currently in design for the plastics industry. My view is that science discovers all the wild new stuff that engineers then find practical uses for. They in effect provide the tools that design engineers create with. This is what divides the two.
In my experience, engineers are a free thinking bunch and on the whole I would expect to find a much higher than average concentration of atheism in this profession. Cos we are dead clever!

Other Comments by eddie.river

47. Comment #27260 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Sorry Corylus, the vegetables are out of favour at the moment!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

48. Comment #27328 by CJ on March 24, 2007 at 4:04 am

The critical bit of the Wiki entry is this,

"The validity of these hypotheses is debatable, as neither has actually been subjected to experimental rigor."

It's just speculation based on hear-say and therefore as irrelevant as creationist crap!

Bruce Salem needs to put some facts down.

Show us your evidence Bruce.

Other Comments by CJ

49. Comment #27617 by cheshirecat on March 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Belief in God is entirely compatible with a normal mental state. Whether such beliefs are wrong is another matter. Some of you seem to be suggesting that religious people have some sort of mental condition. I think this is partly some of the 'us and them' mentality displayed here. You must blacken your opponents. "Engineers who believe in God are not proper scientists, and anyway engineers are not scientists anyway."

Engineers have to build things. They need a conception of practicality cost and manufacture. They need to go down to the fab shop and get their hands dirty finding out how things are put together. I think that is how they differ from physicists, though presumably physicists have to build a lot of their lab equipment.

The point about anthropologists seems to be a good one. Richard Dawkins is always bleating on about how his own work indicates the sheer improbability of God where as it seems to me that history and anthropology point out the inconsistencies of belief in one god over another far better. After all why should a god not chose evolution to create the world if he did it at all. The problem of the different conceptions and inconsistencies in the view of that god provides me with a far sharper critique of religion.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

50. Comment #28792 by Mamba on March 30, 2007 at 10:23 pm

My take is this: Engineering is a profession where uncertainty is a Bad thing. Someone posted that they 'knew' their circuit would work before it was built. You want to 'know' that your building/bridge etc. will work within design limits. Uncertainty is fundamental to scientific research - as opposed to applied science. It would be interesting to see the stats for applied vs. research scientists. I'd think that there are some engineers whose work is more "researchy" - perhaps they'd score differently than their applied engineering brethren.

I'm near believing that religious fundamentalism and extreme political conservatism have at least some genetic component. Perhaps there is a gene that predisposes some individuals to be uncomfortable with uncertainty, ambiguity etc. Engineering might be a natural choice for those folks to express curiousity, creativity etc. within a more well defined context than biology or physics. Bet they don't care for abstract art either :-)

Other Comments by Mamba