|
Top-level
 It can also be like other things, but it _is_ (or can be and often is) engineering. I will fight those who say otherwise and I have citations to prove it. It doesn't resemble modern structural engineering as it is practiced in the United States after 1950 or so. Agreed. But engineering involves so so many more disciplines than structural engineering, and especially more than "structural engineering in the US post 1950." 13 comments
I find this important not just as a semantic point, but because it underscores an _ethical obligation_. If we're engineers, then by default we need to look at engineering ethics. If we're engineers, then we by default need to recognize our social debt and social obligation. If we're engineers, then we need to look at engineering processes for making sure we meet the above. Also if we're engineers it gives us a rich history of groups to draw from—we don't need to make this up as we go!  @hrefna this is the key point, and the reason I'm always hesitant to describe myself or my job description as an "engineer" - as long as I'm not bound by any ethical or professional standards, it doesn't seem right to claim the title. @tess See, to me it is an ethical _obligation_, not a _binding to professional society_. A lot of engineering takes place outside of professional societies. They are (comparatively) modern, dating just back to the mid-to-late 19th century. But beyond that, I try to maintain a membership with the ACM, so I _am_ bound by those standards. Also I personally have oaths from school to uphold. That there is a lack of _punitive enforcement_ doesn't remove the oath, c.f., Ritual of the Calling. @sophieschmieg @hrefna huh, I did not know that this was an option, or the implications. This actually seems like the correct way (well, at least *a* correct way) to make a statement about how we should comport ourselves. (I'm reading the code of ethics now, and it's all good stuff.) I really like the ACM code of ethics. I wasn't involved in its process, but I followed along while the current one was being drafted, and a lot of good people worked on it and they did good work getting everything together. @hrefna the problem is that the weird libertarian bent and lack of solidarity in tech means that if you won't do something they're just going to fire you and hire someone who will. Without enforced obligations, harmful and dangerous products will be put on the market. Already are on the market. We either need unions or professional standards. Otherwise we have no real power to say "no". @tess I mean that is true in every other engineering discipline as well. I know engineers—passed the FE, qualified for the EIT at a minimum, and have an ABET-accredited degree with "engineering" in the title engineers—who have worked on the B-52, on the Atlas-V rocket. I know engineers who have worked for companies like Boeing, Northrop-Grumann, and Ball Aerospace. We aren't unique: others deal with the same. But also: I am #union. Partly for this reason exactly. That's a solvable problem.  @hrefna Personally I find the term "software engineer" quite irritating, because it's so often used to describe the process of downloading something from GitHub and then following the instructions. Would you support a formal requirement for someone to hold particular qualifications in order to describe themselves as a "software engineer"? I would, myself, even though it would take me a few years to actually achieve those qualifications. @FenTiger I'll note first: Formal qualifications are _very_ modern, and that having any kind of force is even more modern than that. Lots of engineering disciplines don't do anything with "sue me stamps" and to the degree they have passed any such certification they rarely use it outside of, e.g., expert witnesses (including, often, things like aerospace). I'm not opposed per se, but the devil there is in the details: I can envision requirements I would support, but also ones I wouldn't. |
Gregory's Server
@hrefna reminds me of an old housemate (piano tech by profession) who hates that people used "tool" to refer to anything non physical.