The problem, though, is that engineers are the most dangerous, from a rationality standpoint. (Edit- David_Gerard found it; I was thinking of Engineers and woo on rationalwiki.)
Essentially, engineers are good at compartmentalizing, but they’re not good at figuring out truth. And so prominent creationists are almost all engineers. The 9/11 hijackers were almost all engineers. Engineers gone wrong are people who can execute a plan but can’t prove a theorem- they use stuff because it works. And so when a fundamental, unquestioned belief that they’ve seen work is under attack, their impulse is not the scientist’s impulse of “hm, let’s see what’s going on here.”
That said, I do think increased science literacy would do a lot of people a lot of good.
Reason as memetic immune disorder on LessWrong; Engineers and woo on RationalWiki. (The latter is mediocre and one day I’ll get around to making it better.) Salem Hypothesis: “In any Evolution vs. Creation debate, A person who claims scientific credentials and sides with Creation will most likely have an Engineering degree.”
The problem you describe is that engineers can get away with all manner of quite remarkable crankery as long as their engineering works.
One should keep in mind that the cranks are exceptional. Most engineers are perfectly normal geeks who respect science and mathematics as things that work independently of what humans think of them. However, engineer arrogance about fields not their own—and by extension, technologists in general—is stereotypical for a reason, and can easily slip into not understanding what the heck you’re pontificating on. Biologist impatience with transhumanists’ assertions is almost standard, for example.
Most don’t take it as far as Andrew Schlafly of Conservapedia, who, despite having been an electrical engineer before he studied law, is deeply suspicious of the concept of complex numbers.
The problem, though, is that engineers are the most dangerous, from a rationality standpoint. (Edit- David_Gerard found it; I was thinking of Engineers and woo on rationalwiki.)
Essentially, engineers are good at compartmentalizing, but they’re not good at figuring out truth. And so prominent creationists are almost all engineers. The 9/11 hijackers were almost all engineers. Engineers gone wrong are people who can execute a plan but can’t prove a theorem- they use stuff because it works. And so when a fundamental, unquestioned belief that they’ve seen work is under attack, their impulse is not the scientist’s impulse of “hm, let’s see what’s going on here.”
That said, I do think increased science literacy would do a lot of people a lot of good.
Reason as memetic immune disorder on LessWrong; Engineers and woo on RationalWiki. (The latter is mediocre and one day I’ll get around to making it better.) Salem Hypothesis: “In any Evolution vs. Creation debate, A person who claims scientific credentials and sides with Creation will most likely have an Engineering degree.”
The problem you describe is that engineers can get away with all manner of quite remarkable crankery as long as their engineering works.
One should keep in mind that the cranks are exceptional. Most engineers are perfectly normal geeks who respect science and mathematics as things that work independently of what humans think of them. However, engineer arrogance about fields not their own—and by extension, technologists in general—is stereotypical for a reason, and can easily slip into not understanding what the heck you’re pontificating on. Biologist impatience with transhumanists’ assertions is almost standard, for example.
Most don’t take it as far as Andrew Schlafly of Conservapedia, who, despite having been an electrical engineer before he studied law, is deeply suspicious of the concept of complex numbers.