Mr Opinion,

Your assumption that it's all about social status is incorrect. 'Tis actually about accuracy.

There is a huge difference between being knowledgeable and having had specialised training (both of which are different from actually being capable). Considering your past form, I suspect you know this and have made a deliberate mistake (and accused me of posting a load of crap) in order to make it look like you haven't lost the argument.

"I have studied engineering and the only subjects I would say engineers are knowledgeable in are mathematics, physics, and chemistry."
I have already explained why that comment is ludicrous when you mean what you say. However, assuming you're still misusing the word "knowledgeable" to mean "the recipient of specialised training", it still depends on the engineers. The previous example of geology is something that's always been part of the standard training for civil engineers. And the biomedical engineers in Armchair's example will have had a lot of specialised training in biology.

"And even that is only to a limited level, definitely not the level a scientist or mathematician would be expected to know."
Again it depends on the engineer – for example I'd expect chemical engineers to have as deep a knowledge of chemistry, and as much formal training in it, as the scientists.

With the possible exception of the pseudosciences (astrology, homeopathy, numerology etc) you'd be hard pressed to find anything that no engineer is trained in, firstly because almost everything relates to engineering in some way, secondly because many people are trained in other things before they become engineers, and thirdly because many university engineering programs include elective non-engineering courses.

But in most cases the number of engineers with specialised training is dwarfed by those who gain knowledge of the subject through technical journals, society meetings, documentaries, conferences, books etc.

Dear Aidan,

Instead of waffling on like an engineer and trying to avoid the question why don't you just add the other subjects you think engineers are knowledgeable to the list. I've given physics, chemistry and maths. Just add to this the other subjects you think engineers are knowledgeable in. Then we have something concrete to discuss on this matter. I am interested to see what you will put on the list. If you don't then we can all assume that I am correct in what I have been saying.

Sorry EmperorJulian, my mistake.
I think my comment was meant to be directed at Mr Opinion.
I'll defend engineers contribution to society.
I'll support anyone that is building or creating our world over those foolish social justice warriors that just want to argue about petty things.
At least these guys went to University for something worthwhile.

Dear Armchair Critic,

That's not a very nice thing to say about lawyers.

They may be only tradespeople like engineers but they do have a very useful function to play in a society.

Hey Aidan!

Q: What's the shortest book in the world?

A: The Engineers' Knowledgeability Almanac.

Opinion,

"...because I also have degrees in anthropology, sociology and history."

How does one get degrees in specific subjects?

Or are they like a degree in Chinese?