what does "scientist" mean,exactly?

[ahmet]

I have not wanted to enroll any master or/doctorate program but I deal with and would continue dealing with scientific contexts and research. 

simply,I would like to do the research on  whatever I want and it seems I am a bit pragmatist (because I do not want to deal with anything that would not provide any efficacy anymore).

Thus can we accept me as a scientist?

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by ahmet

[Bufofrog]

No, but you can call yourself a scientist if you like.  The definition is rather vague on what a scientist is exactly.  

[iNow]

It’s a person who’s doing science. It’s not like there’s a committee somewhere approving people to use the label or disallowing others from doing so. 

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

No, but you can call yourself a scientist if you like.  The definition is rather vague on what a scientist is exactly.  

I think the difference in people's minds is one of profession. I'm a writer and a barista and a scientist and chef and a builder, but I don't get paid to do those things. 

[CharonY]

It is also a matter of context. E.g. saying that one should listen to scientists when it comes to pandemic responses of course means that one should listen to folks with actual expertise in those areas. Not scientists with expertise in other areas or hobbyists.

[ahmet]

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is also a matter of context. E.g. saying that one should listen to scientists when it comes to pandemic responses of course means that one should listen to folks with actual expertise in those areas. Not scientists with expertise in other areas or hobbyists.

ya yes. but sometimes people or more correctly folks may be bigoted (i.e. incorrect). this presumably in somewhere may be extended to wide range of people,which is really significant count of people. For instance, here in turkey,I am sure that many people believe or act as you have to have a relevant and expected title (e.g. associate professor ), education and most seriously and very interestingly : regular salary and work. (in other words "an approved academic job at any university"

 

the last one to me is very interesting and I think that this can be accepted as a type of bigotion. 

because that is incorrect. First, under that that one complies the official rules (i.e. regulations), and deals with any contexts and spends sufficient effort and has expected knowledge,then this should be enough. But in many times this does not happen.

 

I agree to charonY if she/he implies/shows the regulations, but surely, pofession is a bit different.

I know several languages, but , there are many professors who do not know even one foreign language or who are not qualified on this issue, which is directly affecting the quality of any academic research.

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by ahmet

[Airbrush]

It seems to me that a "scientist" is someone that does "science" professionally, doing research, teaching, or other projects, not as merely a hobby.  A musician is someone who does music professionally, not merely as a hobby.  An athlete is someone who makes money from sports.

Does anyone know of important science that came from non-professional scientists?

Edited October 26, 2020 by Airbrush

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Does anyone know of important science that came from non-professional scientists?

There are certain areas where I am sure that non-professionals can and have contributed. This is probably most dominant in areas where data collection and observational studies lead to insights (what some folks wrongly proclaim to be stamp collecting). This also includes aspects of traditional (in some areas also called indigenous) knowledge, where empirical knowledge has been integrated into science literature. Due to the way the system works, there is often (but not always) a professional scientist involved at some point, but mostly to translate the information in a way that is more cohesive. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

An athlete is someone who makes money from sports.

I'm sure that would be a surprise to the Olympians who won gold medals back when competitors had to be amateurs.

[ahmet]

7 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Does anyone know of important science that came from non-professional scientists?

I think or I was thinking that doing science or dealing with it as a hobby could not mean that you were not doing that job professionally?"

could you define what profession means?

[timo]

9 hours ago, Airbrush said:

It seems to me that a "scientist" is someone that does "science" professionally, doing research, teaching, or other projects, not as merely a hobby. [...] Does anyone know of important science that came from non-professional scientists?

The explanation of the photoelectric effect and the theory of relativity would match that criterion. I kind of thought that Isaac Newton had a job as master of coin or something like that, but I could not verify that. I am not aware of any more recent examples - not even the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule. That makes me wonder to what extent "only scientists make contributions to science" is a tautology (i.e.: science is defined as "what professional scientists do"). For example, you could argue that Mark Zuckerberg has started the largest sociological experiment in the history of mankind. But the people credited for scientific contributions are the hitchhiking university scientists that write papers about it.

[studiot]

 

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm sure that would be a surprise to the Olympians who won gold medals back when competitors had to be amateurs.

Yes indeed +1

10 hours ago, Airbrush said:

It seems to me that a "scientist" is someone that does "science" professionally, doing research, teaching, or other projects, not as merely a hobby.  A musician is someone who does music professionally, not merely as a hobby.  An athlete is someone who makes money from sports.

Does anyone know of important science that came from non-professional scientists?

 

Have you not heard of Einstein, Cavendish, Wordsworth, even Napoleon made a contribution to Mathematics.

Whilst in more recent times most people involved in Science gained their livelyhood from it, in the past a significant majority did not.
Some were of independent means (Cavendish), some had other jobs (Einstein) , some had other callings (Wordsworth) , some were elite supported by slaves (ancient Greeks) and so on.

 

[Airbrush]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm sure that would be a surprise to the Olympians who won gold medals back when competitors had to be amateurs.

Ok you got me there, but other than pro athletes and Olympic hopefuls, you really can't call someone who just exercises or plays at sports, an athlete.

[zapatos]

Just now, Airbrush said:

...but other than pro athletes and Olympic hopefuls...

College football players.

 

[Area54]

14 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Does anyone know of important science that came from non-professional scientists?

There are several examples from the 19th century and earlier. My interest in geology prompts me think of Mary Anning, of whom Wikipedia says "[she] was an English fossil collector, dealer, and palaeontologist who became known around the world for finds she made in Jurassic marine fossil beds in the cliffs along the English Channel at Lyme Regis in the county of Dorset in Southwest England.  Anning's findings contributed to changes in scientific thinking about prehistoric life and the history of the Earth."

(Those interested in her story can find out more in The Dinosaur Hunters, by Deborah Cadbury. )

[ahmet]

On 10/1/2020 at 10:07 PM, Phi for All said:

I think the difference in people's minds is one of profession. I'm a writer and a barista and a scientist and chef and a builder, but I don't get paid to do those things. 

meanwhile, I respect your status in regard to every direction. 

But I am sure that if you were at somewhere else ,(where I do not want to specify) ,while some people would respect your academic title, they would definitely laugh to you if you were expresing your other positions you mentioned in this paragraph. Though, this is not a generalisation and should not be ,too. Luckily, healthy minded people also exist at almost everywhere even though the amount of such people is dense or few. 

[Airbrush]

Then a "scientist" is someone who does "science" professionally, or they inherited wealth so they could do science just for fun?

Anyone know of an important science discovery, or won a Nobel Prize in sciences, in the past 50 years that did NOT come from a science professional or a person born into wealth, who didn't need to earn a living?

Edited October 27, 2020 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

41 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Ok you got me there, but other than pro athletes and Olympic hopefuls, you really can't call someone who just exercises or plays at sports, an athlete.

I have some friends who took league play to extremes when they were younger. Flag football, bowling, baseball, basketball, these guys got to be pretty good for weekend warriors, and they trained seriously. I would define their dedication as that of an athlete, even though a trophy was the most they ever got in compensation.

[iNow]

Interesting mixture of tautology and no true scotsman fallacy happening here

[zapatos]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Interesting mixture of tautology and no true scotsman fallacy happening here

I don't see how the line can be drawn at whether or not you are making money. Unless the terms "athlete" and "scientist" are governed by a recognized body they will be viewed differently by different people. 

A volunteer doing bench work in a lab is doing science as much as the person getting paid to do the same thing. High school kids competing for the Westinghouse Science Talent Search are certainly doing science. My son played basketball, soccer and baseball for his high school Varsity teams. I played rugby for my college team. I'm surprised we might not have been considered athletes just because we didn't make money or play at the highest level of the sport.

[swansont]

A scientist is someone who does science. You can make a distinction between professional and amateur, but those are modifiers/distinctions within the category — both are scientists. A scientist who becomes unemployed doesn't suddenly forget how to science.

You can also make a distinction about the level of training. But someone without a degree who is doing science is a scientist. These days it's unusual, but go back a while, and training wasn't quite as formal. There have been largely self-taught scientists, and others who were informally taught, for at least part of their background.

Einstein had defended his thesis, IIRC, when he was employed as a patent clerk  and wrote his papers in 1905; he did this while looking for a professorship (much like actors and actresses wait tables between gigs if they haven't made the big time). He was a scientist.

 

 

 

[ahmet]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

A scientist is someone who does science. You can make a distinction between professional and amateur, but those are modifiers/distinctions within the category — both are scientists. A scientist who becomes unemployed doesn't suddenly forget how to science.

You can also make a distinction about the level of training. But someone without a degree who is doing science is a scientist. These days it's unusual, but go back a while, and training wasn't quite as formal. There have been largely self-taught scientists, and others who were informally taught, for at least part of their background.

Einstein had defended his thesis, IIRC, when he was employed as a patent clerk  and wrote his papers in 1905; he did this while looking for a professorship (much like actors and actresses wait tables between gigs if they haven't made the big time). He was a scientist.

 

 

 

This paragraph ,I think,almost the most perfectly outlines what i have intented to express!

Thank you very much!

Edited October 27, 2020 by ahmet

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

A scientist is someone who does science. You can make a distinction between professional and amateur, but those are modifiers/distinctions within the category — both are scientists. A scientist who becomes unemployed doesn't suddenly forget how to science.

You can also make a distinction about the level of training. But someone without a degree who is doing science is a scientist. These days it's unusual, but go back a while, and training wasn't quite as formal. There have been largely self-taught scientists, and others who were informally taught, for at least part of their background.

Einstein had defended his thesis, IIRC, when he was employed as a patent clerk  and wrote his papers in 1905; he did this while looking for a professorship (much like actors and actresses wait tables between gigs if they haven't made the big time). He was a scientist.

 

 

 

I think that is a good way of putting it. Ultimately a scientist contributes to our understanding of the world or some aspects of it. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 10/27/2020 at 10:55 AM, Airbrush said:

Ok you got me there, but other than pro athletes and Olympic hopefuls, you really can't call someone who just exercises or plays at sports, an athlete.

What were they before turning pro or getting to the point of becoming an Olympic hopeful? Exercisers? How about their peers at that time that didn't go as far but hoped to.

Most high school athletes, for instance, would consider themselves athletes.

[dimreepr]

On 10/27/2020 at 4:55 PM, CharonY said:

Ultimately a scientist contributes to our understanding of the world or some aspects of it. 

Isn't that the same definition as a priest?