Physics is a pure science that seeks to understand the behavior of matter without regard to whether it will afford any practical benefit. Engineering is the correlative applied science in which physical theories are put to some specific use, such as building a bridge or a nuclear reactor. Engineers obviously rely heavily on the discoveries of physicists, but an engineer's knowledge of the world is not the same as the physicist's knowledge. In fact, an engineer's know-how will often depend on physical theories that, from the point of view of pure physics, are false. There are some reasons for this. First, theories that are false in the purest and strictest sense are still sometimes very good approximations to the true ones, and often have the added virtue of being much easier to work with. Second, sometimes the true theories apply only under highly idealized conditions which can only be created under controlled experimental situations. The engineer finds that in the real world, theories rejected by physicists yield more accurate predictions than the ones that they accept.
Started 4 months ago by Shashank in
Explanatory Answer
The main idea of the given paragraph is that while engineers rely heavily on discoveries of physicists, an engineer's know-how is shaped by conditions in the real world. Option 2 sums up this idea well.
Option 1 ignores the key idea of the paragraph –the relationship between physics and engineering—and only talks of the "unique task of the engineer". So, option 1 is not a good summary of the paragraph. Option 2 labels the relationship between pure and applied science as "strictly linear": this too, is clearly incorrect based on the contents of the given paragraph. Option 4 is also incorrect, as it states that engineering and physics "fundamentally differ".
-
No one is replied to this question yet. Be first to reply!
