>> The argument was that various engineering disciples are independent of each other and of physics.
> No, actually, they were argued to be different than each other, but no one in this thread argued that they were independent of each other or that any of them was independent of physics.
False. Read this quote: "The fact that mechanical engineering and civil engineering and aerospace engineering all derive from basic physical laws is rather meaningless - engineering isn't about first principles ..."
To say, as this correspondent did, that "engineering isn't about first principles", is to argue that it has nothing to do with science, because science establishes first principles.
> Inasmuch as that's the position you are arguing against, it is a strawman.
Well, since you can't be bothered to read the thread and find out what positions people have taken and that I'm arguing against, there's no point to this.
> To say, as this correspondent did, that "engineering isn't about first principles", is to argue that it has nothing to do with science
It is not arguing, as you claimed, that the disciplines or "independent of each other and of physics", especially not when, as that correspondent did, an acknowledgement is included in the same sentence which expressly acknowledges the fact (while dismissing its relevance in context) that they all derive from the same physical laws.
No one is arguing that different engineering disciplines aren't related to each other and to physics; the debate is about the extent to which how those relations (as well as Musk's connection to certain engineering disciplines through SpaceX and Tesla) are relevant in the context of the Hyperloop proposal, the criticism of it, and the treatment of Musk as an authority deserving special deference in regard to that proposal.
> No, actually, they were argued to be different than each other, but no one in this thread argued that they were independent of each other or that any of them was independent of physics.
False. Read this quote: "The fact that mechanical engineering and civil engineering and aerospace engineering all derive from basic physical laws is rather meaningless - engineering isn't about first principles ..."
To say, as this correspondent did, that "engineering isn't about first principles", is to argue that it has nothing to do with science, because science establishes first principles.
> Inasmuch as that's the position you are arguing against, it is a strawman.
Well, since you can't be bothered to read the thread and find out what positions people have taken and that I'm arguing against, there's no point to this.