Indeed. I think the problem is that "engineer" has come to have two meanings: "engineer" and "computer programmer."
The defining trait of an engineer is that he or she can't make innocent mistakes. If engineers sign off on a structure and it collapses, it's their fault; anyone who does that is civilly liable (i.e., able to be sued for damages), and, if memory serves, criminally liable as well if the mistake was negligent enough.
That standard doesn't apply to computer programmers; programmers who want to be called engineers should try thinking about what their lives would be like if they, too, could be sued or imprisoned if they messed up.
(They should also remember Paul Graham's point, at http://paulgraham.com/love.html , that prestige is the after-effect of doing something well. Done well, anything -- even jazz or novel-writing -- can become prestigious. Done badly, anything can become disgraceful, and then it starts changing its name in order to pretend to be something less dishonorable. If you don't want to be called a programmer, it's because programmers are incompetent and personally disagreeable; do what you can to change that.)
Indeed, the history of the development of very large software systems has been littered with disasters. Don't people read The Mythical Man-Month any more?
Maybe within a small bubble of people who understand. I thought the idea was self-evident, but after working with people whose instinctive response to every problem is to throw code at it, I can assure you it is not.
Not all engineers. Doesn't emacs represent a different philosophy than the unix philosophy? I'd find the reference, but I have a pile of software to deal with--what a predicament.
I suspect that some engineers even make mistakes so they can heroically correct them later. I might be that engineer subconsciously.
Very few. Engineers love simple and reliable stuff. You might be thinking CS graduates.