so figuring it out, yes, science. Rebuilding it, no.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @o_guest @mysticstatistic
ok agreed on that one. just to me "rev X" is not necessarily "X" but if "rev eng" was "eng in reverse" then agreed
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @synapticlee @o_guest
[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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @synapticlee
a lot of/most eng esp materials science has been reverse engineering imho. Like when Europeans were figuring out porcelain.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
sorry, forgot about the convo! In this sense would you consider modelling as reverse engineering?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @synapticlee
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @synapticlee
a human brain in 9 months. Does creating a child make me a good modeller? (Facetious question but perhaps needed.) No.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @synapticlee
To show you understand something you have to create a simpler version of it. A model that is identical to the phenomenon being
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
studied (= simulation to some) offers no explanatory account. Something sci aims to provide. It might predict, but not explain.
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.