Working Hypothesis -- what is the value?

I think this is the problem. Right there in your last sentence.The 'good working hypothesis' is not that the yeti is a bear.
The 'good working hypothesis' is that a bear exists in the area.Notice how the good working hypothesis doesn't mention a yeti.
That's specifically because there is no evidence as of yet that points towards a yeti.Science doesn't start with a conclusion and then form hypothesis from it:
"Let's look for a Yeti!!"
"Okay... first hypothesis... a Yeti would leave evidence..."
"We found some evidence... looks like a bear..."
"Next hypothesis... the yeti is a bear...."This is horrible science. This is creation-science. This is science led by it's pre-made conclusion, not by it's evidence.Good science goes from the data and moves from there... with no leading-pre-made-conclusion guiding it. Like this:"Let's look for a Yeti!!"
"Why?"
"Because people say a Yeti exists!!"
"Do we have any evidence?"
"No."
"Okay... first hypothesis is that something might exist... any something would leave evidence, let's go look.
"We found some evidence... looks like a bear..."
"Next hypothesis... a bear exists in the area..."Notice how "Yeti" is left out of the hypothesis/science portion because there's no evidence for a Yeti.
Once you have actual "Yeti-unique-evidence" (evidence of a new species that is ape/man-ish)... then the evidence will be leading you towards a Yeti and you can start using "Yeti" in your scientific analysis.Pre-maturely using the word "Yeti" in your science is allowing your pre-made conclusion to lead your work.
Good science lets the evidence lead. If there's no evidence of a Yeti... then there's no mention of a Yeti in the science.

Yeah, I was thinking about this, and I have something not-quite-right.It should be okay to say something like "I'm looking for evidence of a Yeti..."
That doesn't set off any alarm bells.There's something wrong with "This is evidence that the yeti is a bear..."
That's not quite right.
Maybe there is a Yeti and you haven't found that evidence yet.Maybe it's the amount of evidence found?
That is... this is only 1 piece.
If you search for longer and find more and more evidence for a bear in the area, and no evidence for a Yeti... then you can start saying "this is evidence that the 'yeti' was a bear all along..."There is, however, something wrong with getting stuck on the 'yeti' aspect. At some point, that needs to be dropped or you're not following the evidence.Building something is a bit different.
You would 'drop the yeti' part by dropping any further development down a certain avenue if you identified that it was taking you away from your design goal.
You would then attempt to 'find the yeti' again by trying something else (possibly new). And you'd be doing testing to see how close you're getting (this would be 'finding unique evidence of the yeti').

Yes, I agree.
There's a fine line in there, somewhere.One side uses the term "Yeti" just because that's what the locals (or where the initial information) is coming from and they just want to get to the bottom of things (this shouldn't be an issue).
The other side uses the term "Yeti" because they're attached to it and want it to be real and will use anything that could possibly be linked to it in order to push their agenda (which is bad, mmkay).Perhaps it's an internal decision... you have to identify it in yourself which side of the fence you're on.
One side is scientific, the other is not.
It would only become apparent to others if you're extremely clear about your motives... or once you start pushing either "your agenda" or "the search for truth."

The terms "engineer" and "scientist" are just too broad to make such a generalized comparison.It's like saying you've been both a swimmer and a runner so your experience is proof that runners are better athletes.The massive possible differences across "all engineers" or "all scientists" or "all runners" or "all swimmers" is just so obviously huge that it's kind of ridiculous to attempt such an all-encompassing conclusion.It just makes it look like you have an axe to grind, but I can't even think of what that might be.
Given the realities of the broad terms that makes such a statement useless... I am totally lost as to what actual point this line of argument could possibly have.Maybe instead of talking of "engineers" vs. "scientists" you might want to speak of an individual's possible motivation... that is "someone who is focused on a specific, practical design" vs. "someone who is focused on investigating possible truths about reality."The numbers of engineers and scientists are pretty much split 50/50 in each of those categories.
The facts are simply that any given engineer would do both as well as any given scientist would also do both... depending on whatever project and phase they're currently focused on.