'@synapticlee @mysticstatistic all I object to (as others have before me) is defining science as the reverse process to engineering.
in sci we don't build eg computers. That building bit is where design tech & engineering starts.
-
-
ok agreed on that one. just to me "rev X" is not necessarily "X" but if "rev eng" was "eng in reverse" then agreed
-
[160 char brevity!] specifically, agree that sci =/= eng. not sure if rev eng is in set of eng. but if it is, agreed sci =/=rev eng
-
a lot of/most eng esp materials science has been reverse engineering imho. Like when Europeans were figuring out porcelain.
-
sorry, forgot about the convo! In this sense would you consider modelling as reverse engineering?
-
no cos to me modelling is about understanding. A model is not a copy. A direct copy of a brain is another brain. I can create
-
a human brain in 9 months. Does creating a child make me a good modeller? (Facetious question but perhaps needed.) No.
-
the baby comment is immensely distracting. they are made neither by copying nor by reverse engineering.
-
but they would be the best model for a previous participant. ;)
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
this is why computer science, my bg, is actually not a science. It's maths (think big O etc) and engineering.
-
imho: reverse eng contains experiments but its not sci and sci contains figuring things out but it's not eng.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.