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.
