Who is a scientist?

[tyder001]

I was reading a thread and a reply by Angel and I was going to make a quick reply. Then I got carried away and got way off topic. So, to keep from hijacking a thread I just started a new one. Here is the statement that got me started. My reply that I think needed it's own thread or just needed to die follows. I promise I won't delete it just because somebody doesn't follow it. It's up to the forum to decide if it's a worthy topic or nor.


Angel wrote: Just because you like to say you're a scientist, doesn't mean you are one.


Not being argumentive here but I wondered about this. Honestly what is a scientist? Who gets to decide? Is a Clinical Social Worker a scientist? Is a doctor a scientist? If I have credentials but I dare to question Darwinism am I still a scientist or do I get drummed out of the club? Are the PHD researchers who are Christians still scientist? What if they beleive in God but they also have made valuable contributions to DNA like Francis Crick? Is he still a scientist although he pisses Michael Schermer (who isn't a scientist off?) I look at stats and use time tested procedures in my work and even go back and study social movements from the days of the first mental health and social services half way houses. Am I a scientist? Can an actual scientist simpy be wrong but still be a scientist?

Now I know this sounds like I'm picking at Angel. I'm not. I respect Angel and enjoy our back and forth talks. I was just wondering. One reason is this weekend I heard a very spritual (and to me enligthtened) statement by a person who some called "spiritual" Yet, somebody else assured me and others that this guy was the very voice of Satan. So, who gets to decide who is hearing from God and who is wacko or possessed (if ya believe in such things.) So, the scientist thing got me to thinking. Is it worth a discussion? I'm not sure. I do know that some scientist such as Stanton Friedman go off the scientific trail because they are so committed to a certain "explanation" but is he still a scientist? He's certainly more of one than I am. In a simaliar vein I think Richard Dawkins goes off the scientific trail because of his "commitment" to a worldview. But, is he still a scientist? He certainly is. But. is Hugh Ross the Canadian Astromener who belives passionalty in God a scientist?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this. One can be religious and still be a scientist doing wonderful work. Francis Collins is an example that often comes up. He was the head of the Human Genome Project and is in fact Christopher Hitchens' oncologist. Those two do not agree on religion, but it doesn't hurt the brilliant work Collins does. Although Collins is religious, he does not ignore the scientific facts behind evolution or other sciences.

My comment in that thread was specific to the guest. He seems to be calling himself a scientist, but he says that academic science is wrong because it doesn't jive with what he's trying to prove.

Here's what Issac Newton (a religious man) had to say on it, paraphrased by Wikipeda: A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.

 

[Terjarv]

Not being argumentive here but I wondered about this. Honestly what is a scientist? Who gets to decide? Is a Clinical Social Worker a scientist? Is a doctor a scientist? If I have credentials but I dare to question Darwinism am I still a scientist or do I get drummed out of the club? Are the PHD researchers who are Christians still scientist? What if they beleive in God but they also have made valuable contributions to DNA like Francis Crick? Is he still a scientist although he pisses Michael Schermer (who isn't a scientist off?) I look at stats and use time tested procedures in my work and even go back and study social movements from the days of the first mental health and social services half way houses. Am I a scientist? Can an actual scientist simpy be wrong but still be a scientist?

Now I know this sounds like I'm picking at Angel. I'm not. I respect Angel and enjoy our back and forth talks. I was just wondering. One reason is this weekend I heard a very spritual (and to me enligthtened) statement by a person who some called "spiritual" Yet, somebody else assured me and others that this guy was the very voice of Satan. So, who gets to decide who is hearing from God and who is wacko or possessed (if ya believe in such things.) So, the scientist thing got me to thinking. Is it worth a discussion? I'm not sure. I do know that some scientist such as Stanton Friedman go off the scientific trail because they are so committed to a certain "explanation" but is he still a scientist? He's certainly more of one than I am. In a simaliar vein I think Richard Dawkins goes off the scientific trail because of his "commitment" to a worldview. But, is he still a scientist? He certainly is. But. is Hugh Ross the Canadian Astromener who belives passionalty in God a scientist?

I certainly think the term is tossed around loosely. No, the title certainly does not require a PhD. I would classify a scientist as someone who is professionally trained and/or educated to use the scientific method in a particular field of study. However, there are certainly exceptions to the definition.

There is nothing wrong with being religious and a scientist, many religious people have contributed to science and some would argue the two go hand in hand. However, when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and still claim to be a geologist then you are ignoring scientific fact and should not be considered a scientist. Also, a biologist who does not believe in evolution might as well be a physicist that ignores the theory of gravity.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I certainly think the term is tossed around loosely. No, the title certainly does not require a PhD. I would classify a scientist as someone who is professionally trained and/or educated to use the scientific method in a particular field of study. However, there are certainly exceptions to the definition.

There is nothing wrong with being religious and a scientist, many religious people have contributed to science and some would argue the two go hand in hand. However, when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and still claim to be a geologist then you are ignoring scientific fact and should not be considered a scientist. Also, a biologist who does not believe in evolution might as well be a physicist that ignores the theory of gravity.

Well said and I completely agree.

 

[tyder001]

Good responses. I agree completely. I don't think evolutionary theory is complete as of this date but it's certainly more than a "theory" by now. The only "theory" part left to it is the how and why and some of the gaps. But, that is one of the things we use science for.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Good responses. I agree completely. I don't think evolutionary theory is complete as of this date but it's certainly more than a "theory" by now. The only "theory" part left to it is the how and why and some of the gaps. But, that is one of the things we use science for.

Tyder, don't use the rhetoric of the creationists. Many of us have said it, but a "theory" in science is not the same thing a "theory" in the everyday use of the word.

 

[desidragonfly]

Since my husband is a researcher in the field of science, I am going to give a crack at what a scientist is. I think technically it is a person who has completed their doctorate in a field of some sort of biological research. I know in the building my hubby works at, the so called scientists all have 8 year + degrees and have offices surrounding the researchers with 4 - 6 year degrees.

On a non technical standpoint, my husband is of a scientific mindset. . . .a person dedicated to research and questioning everything (without the 8 year degree). He does plant biology work with disease and DNA sequencing, etc.

I think usually people give themselves that scientist label after they have achieved the appropriate schooling and publish papers. That does not mean, in my opinion, that they are experts in their field and are just Darwin based thinkers either. All scientists can NOT be lumped into one category. I do know some scientists who believe in mysticism.

That is great when a scientist dabbles in mysticism because maybe they can eventually help prove some of it. There are a lot of scientific facts based in quantum theory. On the whole picture although, there is no way we can prove (at this moment) whether God is real or their are beings in other dimensions other then through channeling.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to comment on :
One reason is this weekend I heard a very spritual (and to me enligthtened) statement by a person who some called "spiritual" Yet, somebody else assured me and others that this guy was the very voice of Satan. So, who gets to decide who is hearing from God and who is wacko or possessed (if ya believe in such things.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That has been a big question for me also. I have had visions directing my life and people saying that the dark side is possessing me and attributing to these thoughts. I have been healed at least twice (in life and death situations and once was by a pastor over long distance healing) and some Christians (like Jehovah Witnesses) tell me that demons healed me to influence my mind away from the truth of God's Words (the bible) and all miracles are demon oriented in present day.

I have come to the conclusion that if in your heart, you believe that a thought or feeling or message is benign and coming from a good source then go with it. Strict Christians are never going to side with all New Age subjects.

Do not get me wrong, some Christians do believe in miracles, prophecy and the power of the supernatural . . . just not all. I have learned to listen to my intuition and differentiate when dark forces are involved.

What does your heart feel about this enlightened man's statement? Always go by your gut (not head but the ping in your 3rd chakra area.) Realize that every person (and especially Christians) opinions are just statements based off of their indoctrination.

I did not see the correlation to the scientist question and the enlightened man but maybe I missed something.

This is a thread off of the crystal skull guy. Yes, he can be a scientist and mystic too. He has the education (I pressume) but I feel his talk was based more off of mysticism. The fact remains is there are not many facts.

 

[trainedobserver]

I think a more pertinent question might be, "Who is a pseudo-scientist?"

Are they people who claim to have advanced degrees from prestigious institutions but don't actually have them?

Are they people who, although they may be trained in a scientific discipline, have for whatever reason adopted non-scientific attitudes, methodologies, and beliefs?

Are they folks who never publish in legitimate scientific journals?

 

[tyder001]

Angel you lost me. I don't think I use "creationist" arguments since I'm not a creationist. However, I do think the universe has meaning apart from a blind evolutionary force. Does that make me a creationist? I reject any such label. Again, different people use the word "theory" in different ways and there is no "sciencetific" difference. A theory is a theory. Evoluction as a process is more than a theory. Evoloution as mindless and blind is a theory. See the difference? One is science and one is philosophpy. Scuse my spelling. Anyway, if being a creationist is a blind adherence to a "sky god" with no use for the study of evoluction then NO I'm not a creationist. If being a creationist means you beleive in purpose and meaing and even havet he audacity to pray a prayer then Yes I guess I'm a creationist to some. Although, I doubt that particular camp would have me. Anyway, I think we are just splitting hairs here and I'm not interested in simply taking a "word" and beating it to death. I am confident that my statements can withstand "logicigal" agreement or disagreement. But, please don't label me. I'm not any certain thing. I'm a person in the midst of a journey and I (like some scientist) change my mind as the ideas and experience of my journey change. You'd be amazed at how very much of a change my worldview has undergone in my lifetime. Still "evolving."

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angel you lost me. I don't think I use "creationist" arguments since I'm not a creationist. However, I do think the universe has meaning apart from a blind evolutionary force. Does that make me a creationist? I reject any such label. Again, different people use the word "theory" in different ways and there is no "sciencetific" difference. A theory is a theory. Evoluction as a process is more than a theory. Evoloution as mindless and blind is a theory. See the difference? One is science and one is philosophpy. Scuse my spelling. Anyway, if being a creationist is a blind adherence to a "sky god" with no use for the study of evoluction then NO I'm not a creationist. If being a creationist means you beleive in purpose and meaing and even havet he audacity to pray a prayer then Yes I guess I'm a creationist to some. Although, I doubt that particular camp would have me. Anyway, I think we are just splitting hairs here and I'm not interested in simply taking a "word" and beating it to death. I am confident that my statements can withstand "logicigal" agreement or disagreement. But, please don't label me. I'm not any certain thing. I'm a person in the midst of a journey and I (like some scientist) change my mind as the ideas and experience of my journey change. You'd be amazed at how very much of a change my worldview has undergone in my lifetime. Still "evolving."

I didn't call you a creationist, I said you were using creationist rhetoric. The whole "theory" thing is annoying. There are facts backing it up, just like the theory of relativity and gravity.

 

[tyder001]

I didn't call you a creationist, I said you were using creationist rhetoric. The whole "theory" thing is annoying. There are facts backing it up, just like the theory of relativity and gravity.

Didn't I say something to that effect? Gravity isn't a theory. I'll prove it to ya. Jump! I bet you land. I don't think we are that far apart on this one. Just semetics. We look at things differently but we are both honest and try to (although we both hold to our worldviews) look as honestly as we can at the facts as we see them.
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig --><!-- END TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig -->

 

[Randall]

Here's a video related to the subject: Definition of Science ... no let's change that ... this explains it much better ...

 

[exo_doc]

I don't know what the final definition of a "scientist" is, although there are some good posts on here about it.

I consider myself an "amateur scientist".
I love the stars, I'm frequently out on clear nights with either my telescope, or my binoculars hunting for comets or anything unusual. I have a number to call if I find something, but going on 30 years now of observations, and I haven't yet.....I stress yet. I WILL find a comet that will, at least partially, have my name on it.
I have a computer monitored weather station with a UV meter and a recently upgraded atmospheric Geiger counter. I also have a magnetometer that keeps track of the local geomagnetic field - it's cool for when Earth gets hit by a coronal mass ejection or just a lot of solar wind to watch how much the mag field gets deflected.
And some other scientific equipment (microscopes, and what not).

So AM I a scientist? Well, I don't get paid to monitor this stuff, I do it for the sheer fascination I have with the universe around me. But using monetary gain as a guide is wrong I guess.
I'm just happy with my amateur status.

 

[Randall]

Cool exo ... What kind of scope do you use? I was toying with the idea of getting this one ...




The ad ( Link on picture ) for it says:

Celestron CPC 1100 StarBright XLT GPS Schmidt-Cassegrain 2800mm Telescope with Tripod and Tube
List Price: $5,589.95 But they're selling it new with shipping for $2,999

I once took an astronomy course at university and I got to use the reflector telescope at the Rothney Observatory here in Calgary. You could see the spot on Jupiter and see it's moons too. It was pretty cool.

j.r.

 

[TClaeys]

Let's get one thing straight here first. In my estimation it is unfortunate that science used the term "theory" for it's empirical based explanations. "Theory" in science holds a completely different tone and meaning than "I think it was Colonel Mustard in the Study with the lead pipe". Theory in science is an explanation of something based on observation, experimentation, and all kinds of tangible measurable empirical data. This is quite different than the usual critics of evolution that simply say in light that evolution is just a theory. It is vastly different, and shouldn't be confused with the theory that your friend wins at cards often because he can read everyone elses mind. I think it's an important distinction that theory holds different meaning in different contexts.

As far as what a scientist is, ... well it depends on who you ask right?? No unschooled uncredentialed person is ever going to get a job being a scientist unless they can prove they spent thousands of dollars and countless hours training to become one. So in the technical world we live in a scientist is a schooled professional. But that scientist can sit at, say, a DNA forensic lab running tests their whole life. Running sequences continuously or something rather repetitive and boring. Are they really a scientist or did they just train to be one so that they may end up in a high paying job sequencing DNA?? I suppose they are still a scientist since that is their trained profession, but they may not end up being the leader of a team that runs through the entire gamut of the scientific method.

But I would also submit that plenty of science can be done by amateurs. Are they scientists as well?? I think that a scientist is best descibed by what he/she does and produces. If they are aware of the methods, have experience/instruction, and go about research correctly then there isn't much reason that they shouldn't be considered scientists as well, ... but the just won't have the official credentials to go with it. I don't know if amateurs can be published in scientific journals or not, but there isn't much reason they couldn't and wouldn't write up concluding scientific papers as well.

Also it's important to remember that bad scientists exist. Someone can be trained to be a scientist and just do a poor job. Biased data, skewed samples, wrong conclusions, miscalculations, ..etc Plenty can go wrong. And some can just be contributed to a knucklehead that somehow got a PHD in biology and started running experiments to prove crop circles were created by an unknown unseen force! ......

so what is a scientist?? I'm not sure now. All I know is I sometimes "practice science" with my kids, .. and that's pretty fun.

 

[Ron Collins]

Didn't I say something to that effect? Gravity isn't a theory. I'll prove it to ya. Jump! I bet you land.

The point is that in Science it is not known as "the Fact of Gravity" it is the "Theory of Gravity". However, in general speak the word "Theory" is something not possessing enough facts to solidify the conclusion. In science, the 'Theory" title is reserved for hypothesis that have withstood rigorous testing and are repeatable with precise results.

Everybody really needs to understand the difference here. Otherwise you begin the conversation from two distinctly different vantage points. Without basic terminology being equal, miscommunication and impassioned frustration is a certainty.

---------- Post added at 06:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 AM ----------

No unschooled uncredentialed person is ever going to get a job being a scientist unless they can prove they spent thousands of dollars and countless hours training to become one.

Unless your name is Bob Lazar... Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

[NTS]

Newton's theory of gravity proposed that a single force could account for both the behavior of objects near the ground and the motions of the planets. These had previously been thought of as disparate phenomena. As Newton put it:

“I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.”[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#cite_note-2[/SUP]

 

[tyder001]

Damn I forget how many fan boys of "science" there are on here. I stand corrected. I simply was always taught in school about the "theory" of evolution and thats how I parrot it back. Didn't mean to offend any of the deciples of Darwanism. However, I do understand the difference. I even stated or will state now that evolouction is so much a part of our knowledge base that it is certainly the apparent model of the way life evolved here on our planet and what we know of the universe. Now, am I absolutely sure? No. But is it likely? Yes, it's more than likely it's apparent. So, no I'm not anti evoluction. Matter of fact guys if somebody couldn't see my original post (I ain't deleting it.) and just read the response it might seem as if I exposed these ideas: The earth was made in six days by a giant man in the sky and the dinosaur bones were put in the earth by God/Satan just to fool mankind. Now, is that really and truly what you think I meant?

Finaly, the "creationist" label has all of a sudden become a way to dismiss a persons arguments or reason. That's silly. I do believe there is a purposful honest conscious reason for life the universe and everythings. Or as a very well written atheist writer once said. "The fact of the universe holds equal proof that it's all a cosmic accident of evolutionary processes or that it is a designed and purposeful universe. Just stating that God or evolouction or the Big Bang started it or it's evolving doesn't answer the big question." That one dear children is a matter of faith.

Back off man. I'm a Scientist.

---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

I might have come off a little more "intense" than I meant to with my last post. I was just trying to say I do understand what "theory" means. These days certain words are thrown around to discredit somebody before a discussion can get started and I am perhaps to sensitive to them. For instance:
I have always and will always continue to be critical of my president no matter which one is in power. But, these days the term "racist" is slung at you so fast that before you know it you can't discuss it anymore.

I have no problem with a persons sexual orientatation but these days if I say well I don't think you can compare a sexual preference with a persons race or racial struggle you get the word "Homophobe" thrown at you and all discussion is over.

I have no problem with the "Theory" of Evolution or the "Fact" of evolution. But, if I say I beleive sincerely that it is a tool that was put in place for a purpose. The word "Creationist" is thrown out there and everything else you say is just lost in the shuffle.

But, I can also be oversensitive and as all humans do make a mountain out of a molehill from time to time. So, I am going to end my ramble now. Peace.

 

[NTS]

Obviously if there is a God with the capabilities we usually ascribe to "Him" (Her/It/Them) "He" could devise a universe that "naturally" produces the results that He wants (whatever they are). In that sense the universe would have a purpose. But that is entirely a matter of faith. From a natural (scientific) perspective within the universe, there appears to be no such purpose. Creationists generally argue that there IS natural evidence of such a purpose, which makes their argument contradictory to current science.

 

[Terjarv]

Good responses. I agree completely. I don't think evolutionary theory is complete as of this date but it's certainly more than a "theory" by now. The only "theory" part left to it is the how and why and some of the gaps. But, that is one of the things we use science for.

Yes, there are some gaps, particularly with transition species, BUT those gaps keep getting smaller and smaller every year 8).