True, but I mainly mean in terms of their attitude towards research and their level of skepticism and critical thinking when presented with new information.

Engineers are always thinking in terms of "how can I make this work?" and scientists are trained to think in terms of "where does this theory/method break?"

This means that in general, engineers are far more likely to assume one positive result is significant, whereas scientists are far more likely to be looking at and poking holes in experiment methodology. This is a generalization, but in my experience, engineers are far more likely to fall for pseudoscience BS. Granted, my experience is mostly in chemistry and chemical engineering, but this idea in general has been a topic of discussion and research in peer-reviewed literature for years.

What if I took statics but swapped thermo for emag theory? I feel like that's pretty even.

an enginear

Now hiring for an Engineer². Don't apply if you dont have 20+ years experience with LLMs