ah in that case, I definitely agree :p no, I think 'reverse engineering' is just one part of science!
-
-
Replying to @synapticlee @mysticstatistic
I think you are defining reverse engineering a lot more broadly than I do. I just don't see it as part of sci.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
in my opinion it's part of design technology and engineering.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think cognitive science for example is or contains reverse engineering the mind.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I suppose a good q might be what do you think it's a prime/typical/famous example of reverse engineering?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @mysticstatistic
no worries- was thinking of it in the sense of e.g. classically figuring out a radio. Then it's hypothesis testing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @synapticlee @mysticstatistic
do you consider figuring out a radio as reverse engineering? For me the process is about rebuilding it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
so figuring it out, yes, science. Rebuilding it, no.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
hence why in my opinion it's called reverse engineering. Because goal is to (re) build original item.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
in sci we don't build eg computers. That building bit is where design tech & engineering starts.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.