what does "scientist" mean,exactly?

[studiot]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Science is by definition, repeatable.

 

How many times can you test something to destruction ?

9 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

I mean, couldn't Scientists such as Physicists and Chemists, provide exact answers to questions?

Not always, no.

There are indeed questions mechancial (and other physical) questions that can be asked but have no mathematical formula to answer them.
These have to be answered by a (suitable) process.

Quote

what does "scientist" mean,exactly?

This whole question is self contradictory.

There is no exact meaning.

Any further the meaning is changing over time.

Bacon was different sort of scientist from Newton, who was a different sort of scientist from Thomson who was....

 

You might just as well ask

What does "plumber" mean ?

Modern plumbers do very different things and work in a very different way, from plumbers of even just 50 years ago.

Edited November 1, 2020 by studiot

[joigus]

I think this is very much a problem of categories, not as perfect classical (Aristotelian) categories (equivalence classes in maths), but as a Wittgenstein (family resemblance) kind of categories.

A cat:

A cat:

Another cat:

Not a cat:

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Haven't Eddington's so-called "photographic" proofs of star-displacements caused by Einsteinian effects, long been called into question and discredited?

Called into question, yes. That will happen from both scientists and crackpots.

Discredited? No.

12 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

I mean, couldn't Scientists such as Physicists and Chemists, provide exact answers to questions?

You really should learn about science sometime. 

[ahmet]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Quote

what does "scientist" mean,exactly?

This whole question is self contradictory.

There is no exact meaning.

Any further the meaning is changing over time.

Bacon was different sort of scientist from Newton, who was a different sort of scientist from Thomson who was....

 

You might just as well ask

What does "plumber" mean ?

Modern plumbers do very different things and work in a very different way, from plumbers of even just 50 years ago.

no,I asked it because there are differences between the definition's itself depending on one country to another country.

For instance, a "scientist" or more properly an "academcian/academics"  needs to be approved by any university. I mean she/he needs to work at any university with suitable academic position. (Turkey)

On the other hand we know that (at least in the past) any scientist should not have to be approved by any university.

yet, obviously there are some stupid applications.

(for instance I read some requirements from  registration  of some academic journals or over their webpage (directly) and they require that the author who would submit his/her paper should have suitable academic title. This is stupid. Sometimes, we can see the extension of such dogmatic beliefs. surely, this is a fallacy.)

having a degree does not mean that you would be qualified one. While we have had this information in the left hand, we can also say that having no official education would not mean that you would not be a qualified or prospective fellow in the right hand.

 

all in all , I can clearly say that here, the desire and request is effective on some actions to be happened on the issue.

School is in fact,everywhere ,not just a classroom+ labs (etc) surrounding by a classic building (named university) 

ahmet

 

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by ahmet
...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, ahmet said:

no,I asked it because there are differences between the definition's itself depending on one country to another country.

For instance, a "scientist" or more properly an "academcian/academics"  needs to be approved by any university. I mean she/he needs to work at any university with suitable academic position. (Turkey)

Academic ≠ scientist

Not all academics are scientists and not all scientists are academics

 

 

 

[zapatos]

14 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Well that's not Science.  Science means you can make precise predictions.  Otherwise, it's just well=informed guess-work.  Like, when you mention pathogens, such as the Covid-19 virus, there is no science in predictions of how the virus will affect people.

I find your approach to this forum to be very annoying. You speak as if you are an authority when it is obvious based on your comments that you are ignorant of much of what you speaking to. By suggesting that science is only represented by a final 'formula', you are ignoring the 99.99999% of science that preceded it, and all of the successes along the way that brought us to that point.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, joigus said:

Do you mean understanding or misunderstanding?

Depends on the priest/scientist...

Both are capable of seeking knowledge...

[joigus]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Depends on the priest/scientist...

Both are capable of seeking knowledge...

You're quite right. In fact, it's not impossible to be both. And misunderstanding prowls everywhere.

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Well that's not Science.  Science means you can make precise predictions. 

Almost. Science makes predictions with some level of precision. Also measurements with some level of precision. It’s something that’s quantified.

15 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Otherwise, it's just well=informed guess-work.  Like, when you mention pathogens, such as the Covid-19 virus, there is no science in predictions of how the virus will affect people.

No science? Seriously? This isn’t being studied scientifically to be able to make such predictions? 

Who are the people investigating this, then? Astrologers and palm-readers?

[MigL]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Not a cat:

Yet, still my favorite.

My profile says 'Glorious Leader', but it used to say 'Scientist'.
Can I still call myself a scientist ???

[joigus]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet, still my favorite.

Who needs categories?

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

My profile says 'Glorious Leader', but it used to say 'Scientist'.
Can I still call myself a scientist ???

It's not for a humble 'Beacon of Hope' to decide.

You have my respect, that's all I can say.

Plus you've got all the symptoms: a self-correcting mind, critical thinking, insatiable curiosity, relational thinking (pattern sniffing), imagination tempered by intellectual caution, no-nonsense.

Are you fishing for compliments?

That's another symptom: actors, sportspeople, and scientists share it.

[MigL]

Stop it, Joigus.
You're making me blush  .

[ahmet]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Academic ≠ scientist

Not all academics are scientists and not all scientists are academics

but these two descriptions have intersections.

[studiot]

Here are a couple of quotes from Thomas Kuhn's famous Structure of Scientific Revolutions; He make some good points.

Quote

If Science is the constellation of facts, theories and methods collected in current texts, then scientists are the men who , successfully or not, have striven to contribute one or another element to that particular constellation.

 

Quote

Out-of-date theories are not in principle unscientific because they have been discarded.

My example of this here is again Thomson, whose atomic theory has been discarded.

But in his day he was a scientist.

Would you nowadays say he was not because he was wrong?

[joigus]

11 minutes ago, ahmet said:

but these two descriptions have intersections.

Michelle Pfeiffer is not a cat. But she has intersections with the category 'cat' that go beyond the costume.

 

[ahmet]

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

Michelle Pfeiffer is not a cat. But she has intersections with the category 'cat' that go beyond the costume.

haha    it seems like a joke or something relevant to the content of a specific joke. 

if you mention something in biology (i.e. classifications/taxonomia) then ..I do not think that that idea would refute the exact idea. 

vaşak is a cat , tiger is also a cat but they have intersections to be accepted as a cat each even if their family and vary names are different. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by ahmet

[joigus]

15 minutes ago, ahmet said:

haha    it seems like a joke or something relevant to the content of a specific joke. 

if you mention something in biology (i.e. classifications/taxonomia) then ..I do not think that that idea would refute the exact idea. 

vaşak is a cat , tiger is also a cat but they have intersections to be accepted as a cat each even if their family and vary names are different. 

Yes, it was a joke, but I meant something relevant to the discussion, I hope.

What I meant is that the category 'scientist' has no closure, because it's a real category, so it's defined by family resemblance. It has no logical closure.

Is this guy an astronomer?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Levy

I think he is. By the same token, he is a scientist. It doesn't matter whether he is an academic or not.

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yes, it was a joke

Simon Drew (a non scientist) has some very good pictures of cat situations.

I can't post any since they are his copyright and liveleyhood.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=n_WeX4n_A8nMaK3amqgP&q=simon+drew+cat+pictures&oq=simon+drew+cat+pictures&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoLCAAQsQMQgwEQyQM6DgguELEDEIMBEMcBEKMCOggILhCxAxCDAToLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CAgAELEDEIMBOg4ILhCxAxCDARDJAxCTAjoCCC46BQgAELEDOgsILhCxAxDJAxCTAjoCCAA6BQguELEDOggILhDJAxCTAjoICC4QxwEQrwE6BQgAEMkDOgYIABAWEB46CQgAEMkDEBYQHjoICCEQFhAdEB5Q4ANYgDBg6DJoAHAAeAGAAY4EiAG0LpIBCzQuNS42LjMuNC4xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjJyom79OHsAhVJJhoKHS2tBvUQ4dUDCAg&uact=5

[swansont]

4 hours ago, ahmet said:

but these two descriptions have intersections.

Yes, there is some overlap. Scientists comprise some of academics. Academics comprise some of scientists.

 In the US, in my field (physics), 10-20% of PhD students end up with permanent positions in academia. IOW the vast majority are not academics.

[Charles 3781]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, there is some overlap. Scientists comprise some of academics. Academics comprise some of scientists.

 In the US, in my field (physics), 10-20% of PhD students end up with permanent positions in academia. IOW the vast majority are not academics.

Don't you think the term "academic" is rather too vague.  It could encompass all persons who have attended an institute of learning. Whatever the learning was about.

Thus,  a Professor of English Literature, and a Professor of Nuclear Physics, could both be described, simplistically, as "academics".  That's to say, they've learned things that most people don't know about.

But  the distinction between them is this:  The  Physics professor gets his knowledge from following new experiments in modern science. Whereas the Literature professor gets it only by studying old books.  Therefore, I would classify the Literary bloke as a "Scholar". Not a "Scientist" at all.  Even though he's an "Academic". 

Isn't there a huge difference between being a "Scholar", and being a "Scientist"?

 

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

Don't you think the term "academic" is rather too vague.  It could encompass all persons who have attended an institute of learning. Whatever the learning was about.

ahmet specifically stated the use of academic: "I mean she/he needs to work at any university with suitable academic position"

So, no, it's not vague. It's pretty specific.

 

13 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

Thus,  a Professor of English Literature, and a Professor of Nuclear Physics, could both be described, simplistically, as "academics".  That's to say, they've learned things that most people don't know about.

But  the distinction between them is this:  The  Physics professor gets his knowledge from following new experiments in modern science. Whereas the Literature professor gets it only by studying old books.  Therefore, I would classify the Literary bloke as a "Scholar". Not a "Scientist" at all.  Even though he's an "Academic". 

Isn't there a huge difference between being a "Scholar", and being a "Scientist"?

 

That was my point when I said not all academics are scientists

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Don't you think the term "academic" is rather too vague.  It could encompass all persons who have attended an institute of learning. Whatever the learning was about.

Thus,  a Professor of English Literature, and a Professor of Nuclear Physics, could both be described, simplistically, as "academics".  That's to say, they've learned things that most people don't know about.

But  the distinction between them is this:  The  Physics professor gets his knowledge from following new experiments in modern science. Whereas the Literature professor gets it only by studying old books.  Therefore, I would classify the Literary bloke as a "Scholar". Not a "Scientist" at all.  Even though he's an "Academic". 

Isn't there a huge difference between being a "Scholar", and being a "Scientist"?

 

Sad to see so much arrant nonsense.

Quote

could both be described, simplistically, as "academics".

This part is the only part that comes anywhere near the truth, except that not only could they be so described they are so described.
Furthermore this is a term of respect not belittlement as simplistically implies.

 

FYI Professors of English (and other languages) study and comment on works of English that have not yet been published and in some cases not even finished.
And that is, of course, apart from connections they discover between various works of 'literature' over the ages.

It is interesting that great breakthroughs in Science often arise when someone spots a connection between already know material, that has previously been missed.

[Charles 3781]

20 hours ago, studiot said:

FYI Professors of English (and other languages) study and comment on works of English that have not yet been published and in some cases not even finished.
And that is, of course, apart from connections they discover between various works of 'literature' over the ages.

It is interesting that great breakthroughs in Science often arise when someone spots a connection between already know material, that has previously been missed.

Thanks studiot.  I admit the general validity of your first point.  About discovering connections between various works of literature, over the ages.  This was brought out to me, very strongly, by repeated reading of one of my all-time favourite books: Vladimir Nabokov's 2-volume "Commentary" on Pushkin's verse-novel: "Eugene Onegin".  

Nabokov, in his Commentary, demonstrates connections between Pushkin, Byron, Swift,  old Virgil and many other authors over the ages. None of which might have occurred to me. If not pointed out by Nabokov.

Also, as a further,  more modern example -  Orwell's "1984".  When Winston and Julia go to meet O'Brien, their meeting is conducted in a manner strongly resembling a Catholic Ritual.  With O'Brien as the Priest, administering the wine,  and the Host,  (in the form of tablets). And taking Confession (in secret when the telescreen's switched off) and so on. The parallels are clear.

But despite have read the book so many times that it's practically engraved in my memory -  I only became aware of the parallels after reading "Brodie's Notes" on 1984.  These scholarly clarifications of allusions and connotations, certainly increased my literary understanding.  Can't say they increased my scientific understanding though!

Which leads on to your second point - about breakthroughs in Science arising from spotting connections in already known material.  I think something like happened when scientists used known NASA data from Jupiter probes to spot some previously missed Jovian satellites.  Not a great breakthrough, though,  was it?

Can you think of any examples where previously known scientific  data has been re-examined -  with the result of a great breakthrough in Science?

 

Edited November 3, 2020 by Charles 3781
improving style

[Raniyah]

In my opinion, scientists are always finding solutions for possible conditions in the future going through a certain subject stream. For example, finding the best solutions to get more crops from limited lands to avoid possible food shortage in the coming future