OT: Imagine "experts" from our industry explain the mainstream our world: e.g. what's the right programming language, or database technology, why types matter, or not?
Because software development is a skilled trade, not a science. The consortium discussed in the article is made up of actual scientists who do actual science.
"I am surrounded by bullshitters therefore all fields are equally deep in it" is not a correct view.
Then take data science or deep learning which is a science as sophisticated, same there.
We trust experts from other industries so much that we do not tolerate any other view without having a clue what is going on ourselves. The reason is simple, we have our views, they are political and we refer to "experts" to make our views scientific. Just my opinion and I bet that a huge number will disagree again with this comment. But—could I be right? Why not admit that I might be right? Because it's a political topic and your opinion is set.
False claims. There're as many who do and do you know what it does not matter for this discussion because data science and deep learning is a science independently of what some people do or not. This was the point.
Haha sure, read some papers about Bert and its successors. Come back and summarize what you have learned. But your comments shows so clearly that your opinion is set and politely you should check out data science and deep learning before you again write such shallow dismissals (which is against the guidelines btw).
Because no two fields are alike? We don't do anything even remotely scientifically in this industry because it's one of the few where we don't need to for various reasons
I've always thought that true engineering is anything that involves human lives. Bridges, pipes, roads, pace makers, space ships, rockets. Websites don't kill people, it ain't engineering.
That doesn't sound right. Most applications of electronic engineering are not safety-critical, unless we count requirements such as avoiding improper use of toxic chemicals, but setting the bar that low would mean just about any physical undertaking counts as safety-critical.
Projects like the Linux kernel, or the HotSpot and LLVM compiler systems, presumably count as engineering. Building a new GPU presumably counts as engineering. These systems aren't intended for safety-critical use, though.
Another example: it still counts as aeronautical engineering even if you're building an unmanned drone that only ever flies in a lab.
But do you mean: so-called experts? As in, not experts? Well, then that's just a question of finding the real ones, if they exist.
Or do you dislike how they oversimplify when talking to the public? I do too. All nuance is erased. The trick, then, is find out what (true, non-politized) experts say to each other when the public isn't listening.
Problem is that most people don't listen and turned off their brain. Look at this thread. They rather believe some random experts and news outlets calling some random dudes with random degrees experts because they have themselves no clue, never lead always followed others. What do we expect?
"I am surrounded by bullshitters therefore all fields are equally deep in it" is not a correct view.