Correct. Wait, when did I say engineering design exactly?
I think all I'm saying is that "using one of many definitions of scientific...
Actually, "design" was more a a slip of the finger/brain rather than any significant, intended distinction.
As you can see from the two flow chart labels - it is demonstrating the distinction between science and engineering processes.
And now that you mention it, what part of engineering doesn't consist of designing? I am rather of the opinion that the only real purpose of engineering is to create functional or improved designs.
but, back to the issue at hand.
Yes, medical diagnoses require the use of scientific methodology and practices which is why it is generally termed a scientific process, engineering may employ the results and findings of scientific research to help design new and/or improved products, but most engineering does not routinely require or employ scientific methodology and practices which is why even most engineers acknowledge that they are not scientists or producing science in their processes of engineering.
The larger issue of whether or not all practicing doctors routinely and regular employ these same levels of scientific rigor in other aspects of their work, I would be willing to cede that this is probably not the case, particularly in some specialty focuses (such as surgery - which is certainly more in line with engineering, IMO). But, diagnosis is a major activity for most doctors. I don't know if I'd go as far as to call all doctors "scientists," but it is such a significant part of medical practice that I'd have a very hard time not qualifying medical practice a scientific field of endeavor. Even most scientists have to write papers, apply for grants, give and attend lectures, often must teach classes, many also engineer the equipment they need to use in their hypothesis testing, etc., but this does not mean that they are not generally engaging in a scientific field of endeavor.
