What is a scientist?

[Wertbag]

I had a discussion with a guy online who made the statement Bill Nye is not a scientist.  I asked what I thought was a straight forward question "How do you define scientist?"  After a bit of back and forth no definition was forthcoming and I'm left thinking it actually isn't very clear.

Most dictionaries seem to agree that a scientific education is required, but there doesn't appear to be any requirement that this is of any specific level.  Certainly a phd is not a requirement.

Some seemed to say that it was a profession, so that you had to be employed in a scientific field, but others seemed to think that it didn't matter if you self funded your research and worked out of your garage you would still count as long as you are using the scientific method.

Then the question became once you are labelled a scientist is it something you are while employed and lost once you leave that field, or is it more like a qualification that once gained is always a label you can use?  Are ex-scientists or retired scientists still defined as scientists?

In the case of Bill Nye he was involved in a team that designed the "hydraulic resonance suppressor" which is apparently still in use in 747's, plus was part of a team who designed a toilet for the space station (glamorous I know).  So does someone with a science qualification, who works on scientific problems using the scientific method count?  Those projects were decades ago, so perhaps he was but it has now expired?  Some people seem to say scientists are purely theoretical so physical use of science doesn't count, even when lab research on the problem is required.

You then have people claiming to be Christian and Creation Scientists.  If they have a phd, work in a lab and apply the scientific method (no matter how poorly or how bad their conclusions) can they rightly claim the title?

[sdelsolray]

Many professions require certain education and governmental licensing before a person can work in that discipline, e.g., lawyers, doctors, nurses, CPAs, architects, etc.  Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) there are no equivalent absolute requirements for scientists, although many employers will certainly expect a certain level of education.

 

Anyone can claim to be a scientist.  Science practice, overall, has a strong tradition of peer review and reputation is based on accomplishments deemed worthy by others working in science.

[Bhim]

Interesting question. The term "scientist" isn't like "doctor," "lawyer," "engineer," or even "plummer." All of those are specialized terms with legal definitions of varying strength. If I tried to represent you in court despite not having a law degree or a bar certification, I would be guilty of a crime. On the other hand if I said that you should believe what I say about astrophysics because I'm a scientist (and I weren't in fact a scientist), that's deceptive but not criminal.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the term is context-dependent, to some extent. I have a PhD in astrophysics and my job title is "scientist," but I work in private industry as a data scientist, which is really more of a statistician. Should I call myself a scientist? I do. Generally speaking, I'd say that if you have at least some formal training in science (e.g. associate's degree in science, BS, or something of that nature) and have done scientific work at some point in your life, you can safely say you're a scientist. As you allude, it would be absurd for someone who spent 40+ years working in a scientific field to stop calling himself a scientist the moment he retires.

 

As for the creationist...I think a person with a PhD who works in, say, a government lab, can certainly believe in six-day creationism, flat earth, or whatever, and be called a scientist. That's the beauty of science, it works regardless of what you believe about it. Back in grad school I worked in a group with an evangelical Christian who was a creationist, but did excellent scientific work. I guess it helped that he was old earth, and therefore had no issues with Big Bang cosmology. For that matter, I only deconverted in my second year of grad school, so for awhile I too was a Bible-believing scientist. Interestingly, I knew a young earth creationist who worked for another professor. This person's work was of lower quality, but somehow he was able to stand up at the astronomy seminars, refer to galaxies in his study as having gigalight-year distances, cite their redshifts, and still somehow believe in his mind that God created the universe 6,000 years ago. Science doesn't require its practitioners to believe or disbelieve anything, and it should always stay this way.

 

But back to your point about Bill Nye. Technically he's an engineer by training (which is why he worked on hydraulics), but I'm sure he'd tell you that he's a science communicator. He may not be trained in science or do science for a living, but he definitely has a wider breath of scientific knowledge than I do!

[Wertbag]

 

But back to your point about Bill Nye. Technically he's an engineer by training (which is why he worked on hydraulics), but I'm sure he'd tell you that he's a science communicator. He may not be trained in science or do science for a living, but he definitely has a wider breath of scientific knowledge than I do!

 

It certainly does sound like a grey area which is where my interest in this has come from.  With Bill Nye, his qualification is engineering as you say, but such a course is heavily science based (fluid dynamics, physics, chemistry, he even took a class from Carl Sagan).  Is that adequate?  Would designing a zero gravity toilet in the lab before physically building prototypes put you into the scientist category?  Probably a question with a split of answers...

 

I also agree that it has to be context based but often isn't.  You hear "Dr Smith, phd, says..." only to find he has a doctorate in musical history or some other category of arts.  The lay person will by default lump doctors together but really we need the clarity of what the subject at hand is and whether their qualifications match.  Unfortunately this also leads to people arguing about the messenger rather than debating the message.  The whole "Nye is not a scientist so we shouldn't listen to a word he says" is targeting him rather than his message.

[sdelsolray]

 

Great points by all.

 

I want to point out that science is 100% less sexy than it can be portrayed. It is complex and often confusing. The terms "genius" and "scientist" are overused.

 

I would say a scientist is a anyone with a Masters degree in physics, biology, or chemistry related field, or a PhD or MD. The said scientist must practice and/or do research regularly.

 

Note, this does not include PharmD or DO or PA. These are not scientists, but basically the MD's bitches.

 

Of course, someone without any of those degrees can also be a scientist.  It is not a requirement, but I agree it is common and usually expected.

[RogueScholar]

My advisor in graduate school was a pharmD and is a publishing powerhouse. He's an expert in statistics and developing pharmacokinetic models. I would have been hopelessly lost without his guidance as I did my research, particularly when it came to developing a research protocol and navigating the institutional review board, not to mention the quantative analysis of my data. I most certainly would not be published without his help and to give even more credit to him, he allowed me to publish as the corresponding author of the research even though he was the principal  investigator. 

 

I'm currently working on a project with a PharmD who teaches the primary pharmacology curriculum at a medical school and has published multiple studies on the use of metallic nanoparticles as novel mechanisms for drug delivery. 

 

As as already stated, the concept of "scientist" is highly nuanced and not necessarily dependent on a specific degree. 

[disillusioned]

This is a bit of a tricky one. I have a degree in physics, and I'm not a scientist. I'm a high school teacher. My aunt has a Masters in chemistry, and she's not a scientist. She works in finance. I think it definitely has something to do with what work you do or have done as well your education.

 

Bill Nye, though, is definitely not a scientist. He's an engineer. I don't consider engineers to be scientists for the same reason that I don't consider MDs to be scientists. Their job is to apply  science, not do science. (And yes, obviously MDs can be scientists, as can engineers, but they aren't scientists by virtue of the fact that they are MDs or engineers.)

[Wertbag]

Another consideration is the age of science. The scientific method was only formalized in 1521 by Kevin Bacon (he looks good for his age ), does that mean everyone prior to that was not a scientist?

The Greek scientific community was very famous with figures like Aristotle and Socrates, while later figures like da vinci and Copernicus also pre-dated the modern method.

Of course many of these ancient scientists would have been amateur or at least working as teachers to make ends meet while working on their own projects in their downtime.

So where do you draw the line?

[florduh]

My simple definition is a scientist is one who has enough knowledge about a given field of study to form hypotheses and test them in a meaningful way using the scientific method. It matters not if such an endeavor is a paid job or an avocation, and is also independent of college degrees.

 

[Wertbag]

 

My simple definition is a scientist is one who has enough knowledge about a given field of study to form hypotheses and test them in a meaningful way using the scientific method. It matters not if such an endeavor is a paid job or an avocation, and is also independent of college degrees.

 

So would you be of the opinion that once labelled as a scientist that stays with you forever or does it only apply while you are actively involved in the scientific fields?

Are inventors scientists by default?

[Bhim]

 

My simple definition is a scientist is one who has enough knowledge about a given field of study to form hypotheses and test them in a meaningful way using the scientific method. It matters not if such an endeavor is a paid job or an avocation, and is also independent of college degrees.

 

 

While I intend to respond to several other posts as time allows, I did want to say that I agree with this. Technically, the lack of a college degree is no barrier to practicing science. It certainly is the easiest and most popular pathway to a scientific career, but scientific training can theoretically come in many other forms.

[florduh]

 

So would you be of the opinion that once labelled as a scientist that stays with you forever or does it only apply while you are actively involved in the scientific fields?

Are inventors scientists by default?

There are several activities I used to do but no longer engage in, I wouldn't today call myself a paper boy or retail clerk. If I thought it sounded cool I might call myself a retired paper boy. 

 

Sometimes scientists invent things and sometimes inventors do science as part of inventing. My opinion doesn't mean jack, but I'm not really big on labels anyway. Science is as science does.

[★ Citsonga ★]

His show called him "the science guy," but I'm not sure if it also referred to him as a scientist. Regardless, Bill Nye is definitely a lot closer to a scientist than Ken Ham!