>>13705058Not really true. it comes from an undergrad obsession over titles and a lack of context for history. all 3 camps have had theorists who had no impact whatsoever except on theory. all 3 camps have had people who worked hard on making the most practical impact they could.
Let's take one piece of technology and break down how all 3 camps have actually seen it realized: the 3D printer.
>physicsp chem and materials science research that went into understanding polymers and thermoplastics. At some point, research into these, where no device or even means to make such a device, started in the mid 70s and early 80s. The most we had was understanding printer tech, but as far what we see today, this part was firmly in the ballpark of physics and chemistry
>engineeringthis should be obvious. the device design, power delivery, mechanisms, etc., hail from engineering. Granted, there was a lot of research that went into prototyping these machines based on earlier automation designs used in factories for other shit.
>mathematicscomplex assemblies and additive manufacturing aims to create things by understanding their surfaces and how to decompose those surfaces into a series of instruction that belie the blueprint. There's a nontrivial amount of topology, differential geometry, algorithm design (which here requires understanding how to turn analytic truth into combinatorial instructions), etc., in actually using this device to do anything past simply printing out 3d models of anime waifus and instead actually push out useful structures. Math (and CS) is the core field that takes simple technology and can push it to do extraordinary shit. Here's an example:
https://hal.inria.fr/hal-02524371So it's pretty obvious if you have any experience working in the field that everyone has a way to make themselves useful, and technology as we know it can't be realized without everyone participating. That, and lots of people dip into each other's fields anyway.
