Re:Programmers should not call themselves engineers (2015)
by Panini_Jones on Sunday March 12, 2017 @11:32AM
(#13851088)
> The intention is, that when someone calls them self an engineer, you can have confidence in both their technical ability and moral obligations.
I thought the intention was that, even if someone didn't have confidence in both their technical ability and moral obligations, it didn't matter. An engineer is a person whose technical decisions are literally protected by law - if they decide to not sign off on something, they don't have to convince anyone and can't face consequences for it (ahem, Quebec bridge[1]). What you're suggesting is just a byproduct of confidence in the system.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Bridge - Search for 'iron ring'
Re:Programmers should not call themselves engineers (2015)
by ponderingHplus on Sunday March 12, 2017 @12:13PM
(#13851300)
I'm not sure that I fully understand your comment, but what I mean to say is that the intent of regulating the specific word is so that everyone has the same understanding of what using that word entails, when applying it to the profession of engineering. What you say about an engineer's decisions being legally bound are true, but that helps provide confidence in the work engineers do, but isn't the reason for regulating a specific word. I feel like I might be missing something in your comment though, sorry if this doesn't address what you were getting at.
That being said, I normally refer to myself as a chemical engineer (not a chemical EIT). I think the distinction needs to be made when you're interacting with someone that you are offering your engineering services to. For example, when at work I would always sign my emails indicating that I was an EIT.