It’s always amazing to me how people can be experts in a certain field of science, and then go on to deny other fields of science. I have many coworkers like that as a software engineer.
It’s not that hard to understand. There is no reason to assume that someone that spent 4-8 years studying computers is going to be an expert in physics or other sciences. That person is an expert in computers and nothing else unless they studied it.
The problem arises tho when people who are an expert in one field or subject use that as validation to them that they are smart. Therefore any other topic they discuss makes them an expert and so you can never have a real discussion with them because in their mind they are always right.
its confusing because while no-one would expect to be experts in fields they didnt study, they should have studied enough to at least have a basic grasp of the scientific process (if an engineer they should have done some physics maybe up to 2nd year depending on their discipline which would surely have given them the tools to understand how science works in general)
Right but you don’t learn about climate change in physics 1 and 2. I have a computer science degree and took calculus up to calc 4 and physics up to physics 2. The only way you’ll truly understand climate change is if you dedicate yourself to learning about it.
A degree like computer science will prepare you and give you the tools necessary to cut though to the truth but you need to pursue the underlying subjects outside of school because school alone isn’t enough.
The assumption that an engineer should know better is just that, an assumption.
At the end of the day understanding climate change is an educational issue that quite frankly schools do not address.
Right but you don’t learn about climate change in physics 1 and 2
thats not the point. the point is they learn enough about the scientific method, which I did at that level, to have an understanding that the process behind research and plublication would weed out fake or poor science. Sometimes something slips through. But to think that 50+ years of studies across the world by thousands of different researchers in different fields all publishing findings in support of the climate change model is just some agenda or some random theory to be discounted is not something that someone who paid attention in their classes would conclude
But you still need to spend your efforts learning about climate change. It doesn’t just automatically enter your brain. Schools don’t teach climate change.
You clearly spent the time. Not everyone does. Being an engineer doesn’t automatically make you knowledgeable.
Methodology and knowledge are two very different things.
It used to really boggle my mind too (I met a young earth creationist for the first time in my life, he was a network engineer), but then I realized a lot of people just look at techy type jobs purely to make money, not because they are science and tech nerds.
Many people go towards software engineer/computer science type stuff because that’s where the money is. And honestly there is not much there that really would change someones ideology - nothing about sorting algorithms, processor opcodes, schedulers, etc etc really challenges someone’s views - just tools to learn to make that paycheck. So a young earther learns what a packet is and how it gets routed from point a to point b - what exactly would challenge his view that the bible is literal in any of that? Those kinds of people don’t really have any curiosity about the world and are not looking for any answers
deleted by creator
I thought this was basically their stance the whole time. People thought it wasn’t real at all?
I had a coworker ten fifteen years ago who said basically “God’s doing it and it’s a sign of the end times.” This dude was a trained engineer.
It’s always amazing to me how people can be experts in a certain field of science, and then go on to deny other fields of science. I have many coworkers like that as a software engineer.
It’s not that hard to understand. There is no reason to assume that someone that spent 4-8 years studying computers is going to be an expert in physics or other sciences. That person is an expert in computers and nothing else unless they studied it.
The problem arises tho when people who are an expert in one field or subject use that as validation to them that they are smart. Therefore any other topic they discuss makes them an expert and so you can never have a real discussion with them because in their mind they are always right.
its confusing because while no-one would expect to be experts in fields they didnt study, they should have studied enough to at least have a basic grasp of the scientific process (if an engineer they should have done some physics maybe up to 2nd year depending on their discipline which would surely have given them the tools to understand how science works in general)
Right but you don’t learn about climate change in physics 1 and 2. I have a computer science degree and took calculus up to calc 4 and physics up to physics 2. The only way you’ll truly understand climate change is if you dedicate yourself to learning about it.
A degree like computer science will prepare you and give you the tools necessary to cut though to the truth but you need to pursue the underlying subjects outside of school because school alone isn’t enough.
The assumption that an engineer should know better is just that, an assumption.
At the end of the day understanding climate change is an educational issue that quite frankly schools do not address.
thats not the point. the point is they learn enough about the scientific method, which I did at that level, to have an understanding that the process behind research and plublication would weed out fake or poor science. Sometimes something slips through. But to think that 50+ years of studies across the world by thousands of different researchers in different fields all publishing findings in support of the climate change model is just some agenda or some random theory to be discounted is not something that someone who paid attention in their classes would conclude
But you still need to spend your efforts learning about climate change. It doesn’t just automatically enter your brain. Schools don’t teach climate change.
You clearly spent the time. Not everyone does. Being an engineer doesn’t automatically make you knowledgeable.
Methodology and knowledge are two very different things.
It used to really boggle my mind too (I met a young earth creationist for the first time in my life, he was a network engineer), but then I realized a lot of people just look at techy type jobs purely to make money, not because they are science and tech nerds.
Many people go towards software engineer/computer science type stuff because that’s where the money is. And honestly there is not much there that really would change someones ideology - nothing about sorting algorithms, processor opcodes, schedulers, etc etc really challenges someone’s views - just tools to learn to make that paycheck. So a young earther learns what a packet is and how it gets routed from point a to point b - what exactly would challenge his view that the bible is literal in any of that? Those kinds of people don’t really have any curiosity about the world and are not looking for any answers
I’ve been hearing this since the 90s. It’s nothing new.