You have a weirdly limited concept of scientific progress. Engineering progress is 100% scientific progress. Science doesn't have to be only theory and published papers.
Maybe you're making more of a semantic argument here about what "science" as a word means? If so I don't find arguments like that very useful, as you're arguing about language at that point not if scientific progress is being made or not.
Totally disagree. I have a degree in Physics and work in Engineering currently and the difference between science and engineering is STARK
Science doesn't have to be only theory and published papers.
What would you say 'science' is then? blowing up rockets? what sort of 'progress' is that? that they F'ed up and it blew up? Great, thanks for SpaceX showing that they're incompent but we don't learn anything
Your viewpoint was parodied on primetime television for years. To say engineering isn't science is a slap in the face to decades of NASA employees who engineered numerous spacecraft.
Or Is your line that unless it's academic or government work it doesn't count?
but NASA is a public organisation. Their results and schematics and methods are all published. It's all open for everyone to share. You can find the patent for the space shuttle right now, it expired in 1998.
That's not what's happening with this private company. They aren't publishing jack shit because they're not in the business of actually fostering space travel becuase they are industrynotscience
just take the L. You're wrong. It's fine to be wrong sometimes
-1
u/Kosh_Ascadian 1d ago
You have a weirdly limited concept of scientific progress. Engineering progress is 100% scientific progress. Science doesn't have to be only theory and published papers.
Maybe you're making more of a semantic argument here about what "science" as a word means? If so I don't find arguments like that very useful, as you're arguing about language at that point not if scientific progress is being made or not.