Hacker News Reader

Comment by notaddicted | Hacker News Reader

You're refuting the weakest possible interpretation of his statement. "This" is essentially saying, that it is possible to mislead the public by producing work that has some of the qualities of engineering work, but is not actual engineerng work. The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put together some official looking research to support it ... one of the many things you learn not to do in engineering school.

View on HN

  > The alleged violator clearly started with the conclusion, and put
  > together some official looking research to support it

So he was biased for his own argument? As much as people try to be unbiased, I think that it's probably impossible for humans to be completely impartial. If the arguments in the recommendation are so weak/faulty then the DOT engineers should be able to rip it to shreds with a counter-argument. I'm having a hard time caring about the fact that the guy put together a 'professional-looking' analysis without having a professional license. He didn't represent himself as a professional engineer, and he was putting together information for to present his viewpoint to his local representatives.

So long as you're not selling yourself as a PE or trying to use non PE work in a situation that requires a PE, you should be allowed to write whatever god damned report you want. Otherwise, we have a serious breach of the first amendment.

>"one of the many things you learn not to do in engineering school."

Practicing engineers, however, figure out how to do what the client wants within the limits of the law. I usually don't link to youtube videos, but this pretty much sums up the real world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9BUyWVg1xI

The alleged violator _clearly started_ with the conclusion

What are you basing this on?

However, it's the first thing you learn in law school. Petitioning the government is law, not engineering.

Ah. So he was practicing law without a license.

So a convincing argument with "maps, diagrams and traffic projections" and referencing information on official documents, is ipso facto itself "official"?

Amateurs then must be forced to make unconvinced arguments unless licensed by the state?

It may be that there's a danger of ignorant people being fooled by those who can spout seemingly convincing, technical arguments. But in a democracy, the only defense is to argue against them and educate the populace. Any other course clearly invites the "dictatorship of officialdom", something that has prevailed in many places throughout history.

Today I Learned: "unconvinced" is an adjective.

one of the many things you learn not to do in engineering school.

I always start with the conclusion- "I want this to do X"- and then I throw together something that will hopefully do X.

If you don't know what your desired conclusion is, you'll get utterly lost and unfocused along the way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com