ok agreed on that one. just to me "rev X" is not necessarily "X" but if "rev eng" was "eng in reverse" then agreed
-
-
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
the baby comment is immensely distracting. they are made neither by copying nor by reverse engineering.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drjtwit @synapticlee
but they would be the best model for a previous participant. ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I feel like you both (?) or at least just D thinks that this the first time I have come across this argument. It's a
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I lost what the argument was - can you summarise? Rev eng is not science? Or rev eng is not understanding?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
rev eng has a different goal to science imho
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.