Wrong.

From reading some of Adams’ books I know that he was by training an economist. He hacked around in midlevel management jobs and office politics and exaggerated his computer experience until he found himself assigned to managing engineers as if he knew what he was doing. He came to appreciate engineers, however.

Most people assume that Dilbert is an avatar for Scott Adams. Actually, Adams is more the Pointy Haired Boss.

Come on, it involves a picture of a *woman*, drawn by a *man*.
You need to get with the feminist flow.

There is a difference in attitude: Many engineers seem convinced that whatever it is that they know about this unfamiliar subject is sufficient to make a definitive judgment. Physicists and other scientists are generally more conscious of the fact that there MAY be dimensions, aspects or facts of which they are unaware, and which might have a game-changing impact.

Pure mathematicians are out on another limb entirely.

You might as well start wailing on Star Trek and Scooby Doo. Or Calvin’s transmogrifier.

As for Neal’s comment, I’ve often found many physicists to be rather opinionated about fields in which they’re not trained, etc etc. I think it may be a general human trait. Clearly I’m one of the exceptions, and without it most blogs would be duller and quieter. Just try to keep things in perspective eh ?

I actually liked that punchline. I’d do that sorta thing myself if I could pull it off.

I’ve found many engineers to be rather opinionated about sciences in which they are not trained: Because they are qualified to draw conclusions in their own area of specialization, quite a few of them extend this attitude towards all other technical and scientific topics – even in areas for which they have no training and no exposure to facts beyond what they either see on TV or read on webpages.

Usually, they are not anti-evolutionist, but many are deniers of anthropogenic global warming.