Man it always amazes me how little data scientist really understand when you go beyond the points they were taught to parrot... Data scientists need better science and theory background in almost every field...
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@namark it's almost like cyber security!
@bonifartius it was more of a jab at freemo (and his "now let's drive engineers away from this instance" post), I know no other data scientists. The definition though does seems rather pointless. "Looks at data to make sense of it". Well duh who doesn't? Might be just a polite way to say a know-it-all.
🇳🇱
I mean Data science is an actual degree, and a profession. We have whole scientific journals devoted to data science.
And the only engineers I'd be driving away by calling out bad engineers are the bad ones. No regrets there, more than happy to keep the good ones.
If anyone reads me complaining about bad engineers and thinks "He is insulting me"... then they must think they are one of the bad engineers then.
@freemo Well then again you totally fail at wording (unintentionally of course). You could have wrote some engineers, but you wrote engineers, implying all engineers, as such is English language. The readers will not be insulted, but simply think of you as arrogant. How madly in love must they be with you then, to join your instance to prove to you the existence of the good engineer that they are? Considering that these are usually snap decisions.
I certainly could have been more explicit. But saying "engineers" rather than "some engineers" no more implies all engineers than ti does some, it is ambiguous in that regard.
I think the most reasonable interpretation, and in fact the one I meant, would be "most engineers". I think people would be grasping if they took what i said and insisted that i meant every single engineer without an exception in the world. I think most would take it to mean exactly what I intended, that engineers understanding the deeper theory is a rarity.
@freemo @namark but isn't that part of the point with engineers vs. scientists? in germany there is a difference in university for scientists and "university of applied sciences" for engineers. and to be honest, i wouldn't want scientists to build bridges etc. 😉 engineers seem to have a bit broader knowledge, but not as deep as scientists, which prepares them better for real life building things. scientists are specialized and advance their respective fields, while engineers think of ways to combine these things then.
@bonifartius
Generally speaking, yes, that is the difference..I agree I dont want scientist building bridges anymore than I want engineers defining bridge building theory. The issue I find is that the separation of concerns here might mean that engineers are better at building bridges, yes, but not as good as they could be at doing so. Similarly it means scientists are better at defining bridge building theories but not as good as they would be.
Ideally there would be no distinction in education (just in how they want to apply their education) and people who build bridges would be experts in the theory and the application, as would the people defining the theories.
Now for bridges it isnt as big a deal because building new novel types of bridges that behave in radically different ways than we are used to is something that almost never happens, so the separation there isnt as critical as it is in other fields where dealing with edge cases are more common place such as computer and electrical engineering.
@namark