> Isn't engineering the application of science to solve problems? (math, definitive logic, etc.)
Most definitely not. Engineering more often than not preceeds the science. You don't have to have an analytical and theoretical understanding of something in order to harness it and make practical use of it.
In reality, there's a strong feedback loop, where practical hacks will guide the science, the development of which will can then be used to make better practical applications, which can uncover new unknowns, which can then be incorporated into the science etc. The development of electricity and magnetism and or steam engines and thermodynamics are both great examples of this.
1. Do we start calling travel agents "aviation engineers" because they use airplanes to solve problems?
2. I sure hope the engineers who build planes aren't just winging it (ba doom pssh)
3. Context matters. Scientific knowledge increases over time, but isn't there a difference between willfull and unavoidable ignorance? If an engineer from the early days of flight were transported to SpaceX today, but they ignored the math and constructed rockets that we know with certainty will not fly, but they are convinced it will work due to sheer inner conviction, that's no longer engineering imho. Even if it may have been in their time, as long as they were using the known science of their day.
Most definitely not. Engineering more often than not preceeds the science. You don't have to have an analytical and theoretical understanding of something in order to harness it and make practical use of it.
In reality, there's a strong feedback loop, where practical hacks will guide the science, the development of which will can then be used to make better practical applications, which can uncover new unknowns, which can then be incorporated into the science etc. The development of electricity and magnetism and or steam engines and thermodynamics are both great examples of this.